Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER: [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Arable Farmers (Compensation)

Mr. David Drew: How much agrimonetary compensation has been provided for arable farmers this year. [131261]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Because this is the last Question Time over which you are expecting to preside, Madam Speaker, may I say on behalf of us all that we will miss you very much indeed?
Before you call me to order, Madam Speaker, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that arable farmers have so far received £170 million in agrimonetary compensation: £18 million last year and £152 million this year, with a further £57 million to be paid later this year. That is in addition to the £1 billion that the sector receives every year in direct aid.

Mr. Drew: I wish to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks about you, Madam Speaker.
I welcome the amount given to farmers to help them in this time of crisis, but would it not be sensible for us to consider the rigidity of the mechanism for automatic payments related to currency? In particular, is it not perverse that better-off farmers seem to receive the lion's share of agrimonetary compensation?

Mr. Brown: It is true that 20 per cent, of farmers receive 80 per cent, of the support payments under the current structure of the common agricultural policy. That is one reason why we press for reform.

Mr. James Gray: I know that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues who will be lucky enough

to catch your eye during Question Time, Madam Speaker, when I say that no one will miss you more than Conservative Members.

Madam Speaker: I will miss you too.

Mr. Gray: Not if you aim, Madam Speaker.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, whose well-publicised memo in The Times this morning advised the country that he hopes that we will join the single currency as soon as possible, for political reasons? What benefit would farmers derive from that? At what level does he believe that it would benefit farmers for Britain to join the euro? Does he think that we should join as soon as possible, or when the level is correct?

Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me such easy questions. I readily identify with the tribute that he paid to you, Madam Speaker; and, yes, I agree with the Prime Minister.

Operation Gangmaster

Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on Operation Gangmaster. [131262]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): May I also whole-heartedly endorse the tributes that have been paid to you, Madam Speaker?
Operation Gangmaster is a good example of joint action by several Government agencies to tackle agricultural gangmasters who act illegally. Since June 1998, Operation Gangmaster has undertaken a number of raids in the pilot area of Lincolnshire and is following up leads on many illegal activities including VAT fraud, income tax fraud and employment law. During the summer, Operation Gangmaster will be extended to other parts of the UK.

Mr. Dobbin: During this Parliament, workers' rights have been defended, protected and strengthened, whereas during the 18 years of Conservative Government, workers' rights were massively attacked. Will Operation Gangmaster be targeted at agricultural gangmasters who exploit illegal immigrants? According to a recent "Panorama" programme, forced labour camps have been set up. Will the Government tackle those problems?

Ms Quin: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are tackling those issues. Just as he rightly says that we have improved employment rights here at home, so we have to be equally vigilant in ensuring that there is no exploitation of immigrant workers, some of whom have made a bona fide entry to this country to do seasonal work on our farms and in our horticulture industry.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that some gangmasters who were operating illegally were fined in the Peterborough court this week.

Mr. Tim Yeo: On behalf of all my Front-Bench colleagues, may I also say how much we will miss you, Madam Speaker? It has been a positive pleasure occasionally to receive your rebukes when we have mildly transgressed the rules of order, and I hope that I will be rebuked again.
Does the Minister understand that fruit and vegetable farmers face a problem in finding enough workers to pick their crop? A farmer in Kent whom I visited last week, who produces high-quality soft fruit, could substantially increase his production and even begin exporting if he had more pickers available. Will the Minister therefore support my call for a raise in the ceiling on the number of seasonal agricultural workers from abroad who are allowed into Britain for a limited period to work on specific farms, for the mutual benefit of the worker and the farmer? Does the Minister agree that that would help to reduce demand for illegal immigrants, who may otherwise occasionally find work in that area?

Ms Quin: Once again, the hon. Gentleman calls for action which the Government have already undertaken. We have already approached colleagues in the Home Office about this matter, and they are looking sympathetically at the needs of the horticultural sector and at increasing the number of people who can take advantage of that scheme, which can benefit students from eastern European countries and help build good relationships between our countries.
The hon. Gentleman's comments sit somewhat uneasily with some of the comments that his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench have made on immigration.

Farm Diversification and Innovation Subsidies

Mr. Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the effect of subsidies for farm diversification and innovation. [131263]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This is an important question. Evaluation of the farm diversification grant scheme—which closed in 1993—and objective 5b suggests that well-targeted aid can provide good value for money. It is on the basis of the evaluation of previous schemes that we intend to operate the new rural enterprise scheme in England—I have responsibility only for schemes in England.

Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister seen the comments by the Federated Farmers of New Zealand? It says that the removal of farm subsidies there
has given birth to a vibrant, diversified and growing rural economy. New Zealand's experience over the past 15 years of reform has thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector and the environment cannot remain healthy and prosperous without government subsidies.
After 60 years of generous Government subsidies, the farming industry has been in almost permanent crisis. It has become a dependent industry that is not inclined to innovate or diversify. Is it not true that, in many cases, subsidies are not the answer to farming crises, but the cause of them?

Mr. Brown: I have paid careful attention to the New Zealand experience. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot carry on supporting agriculture's over-reliance on the supply side support mechanisms under the common agricultural policy. I attach proportionate importance to the diversification element of the new rural development regulation, which is why we have planned expenditure of some £152 million pver the next seven years in England

alone. The purpose of that expenditure is to get farm businesses away from an over-reliance on supply side subsidies and closer to the marketplace.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister recognise that in his plans to reorganise the regional structures of MAFF, he is making some heroic assumptions about farmers' ability to use advanced technology in applying for subsidies and other applications? Knowing that many farmers are not confident in this area and are elderly, will he ensure that the facilities are available to give practical help to those who cannot master the technology, so that those who depend most on aid are not denied it?

Mr. Brown: The link is a bit tenuous, but it is an important point. I would be making some even more heroic assumptions if we did not take action in that area. I intend to ensure that there is a presence in each of the MAFF regions so that farmers can continue, during the changeover period, to have direct contact with officials in the Ministry to discuss their concerns face to face, not necessarily via new technology or even by telephone. We have conducted successful experiments in East Anglia on the electronic transmission of data, and I am aware of similar experiments carried out in Scotland by the Department with devolved responsibility for administering those schemes. Those give grounds for optimism.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that belching cows are responsible for 25 per cent, of the methane released into the atmosphere, which is a powerful greenhouse gas? Is he also aware that a UK-invented feed additive can cut down that dreadful belching?

Mr. Flynn: From both ends.

Mr. Prentice: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, is it not the case that, to encourage farmers to get that innovative product into the market, we should look at a small kick-start subsidy?

Mr. Brown: A lot of regimes started with small kick-start subsidies. We are looking at non-food crops and some experimental work is under way. We shall provide some funding under the rural development regulation and I am always willing to consider new and innovative ways to enhance farm incomes.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: My mother has asked me to tell you, Madam Speaker, that she will miss you very much on the Parliamentary Channel. [Interruption.] It is true!
Given the Government's commitment to diversification into organic conversion, will they set specific targets for that conversion over time and will those targets be supported by a stable financial package for the long term?

Mr. Brown: I wish that the hon. Gentleman's mother would choose the questions that he asks me as well as the remarks that he makes to Madam Speaker.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: His mother gives him the answers.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps she does.
We have put aside £140 million to spend on organic farm conversion during the seven-year lifetime of the English rural development regulation. We expect that the outcome of that expenditure will be a tripling of the area that is farmed organically. We are not setting specific targets. Clearly, the organic farmers need to win their places in the market, but we are providing substantially enhanced financial support for organic farming because that it what consumers want.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister accept that innovation in e-commerce in farm diversification will be hampered by the lack of advanced telecommunication systems in constituencies such as Congleton? What action will he take to ensure equitable access to the super-highway and, indeed, to increase competition in rural areas, where British Telecom currently has the monopoly of provision?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to stray outside the matters for which I have ministerial responsibility, but I want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the services that the Ministry provides. We are considering making use of the network of rural post offices, for example, as service providers to those running farm businesses, but I assure the hon. Lady that we shall keep a front-line service for farmers in place during the transitional period, with travel distances no greater than they are now.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

Mr. David Watts: What representations he has received concerning the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [131265]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): On your last Question Time, Madam Speaker, may I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks? We shall miss your shepherding of MAFF questions.
In excess of 3,000 representations have been received about the Bill, all but a few of which have been from members of the public and animal welfare organisations supporting the banning of fur farming.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the fact that the Bill was included in Labour's manifesto and that it has the overwhelming support of the British people, will he assure me that he will not allow Opposition Members to frustrate the Bill and stop it passing all its stages in the House and the other place?

Mr. Morley: The House passed the Bill without a vote against it. It has had its Second Reading in the other place, and it will, of course, receive proper debate and scrutiny. It is clear that the measure is widely supported in

this country; and, indeed, given some of the problems in the fur farming sector, it has certain advantages to that sector as well.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: In the light of the recent report of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which points up an important human rights implication for the inclusion of income losses in any compensation scheme for fur farmers, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which is currently in the other place, guarantees that mink farmers will be compensated for losses of income by the compensation scheme?

Mr. Morley: I am aware of the Scrutiny Committee recommendations in the other place and my colleague, Baroness Hayman, will of course consider that issue carefully. We take the opinions of such Committees seriously. The Bill will be debated in Committee, which is the appropriate place to consider all those aspects.

Farming (Small Business Enterprise)

Mr. Kerry Pollard: What measures his Department is taking to promote small business enterprise in the farming industry. [131266]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We are promoting small business enterprise in a number of ways through both the action plan for farming and the England rural development plan, including a free farm business advice service open to all farmers, an increase in the budget for the rural development agencies redundant building grant, new expenditure on training, a new rural enterprise scheme and a new processing and marketing grant scheme.

Mr. Pollard: I welcome the Government's decision to provide a free business advice service to any farmer who wants it. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that those who have to provide that free service are properly trained and fully aware of all the opportunities available under the England rural development plan?

Ms Quin: We are looking closely at the qualifications and eligibility criteria for those who will administer the scheme, so that they will be in a position to give informed, worthy and worthwhile advice to the farmers who apply for it.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What guidance has the Minister's Department issued to national parks on farm diversification?

Ms Quin: National parks, as well as other organisations, have been involved in the discussions on planning issues that are taking place across government. The hon. Gentleman will know that the action plan for farming, which was announced on 30 March, included examination of the importance of ensuring that there were


as few obstacles to farm diversification as possible. In all parts of the country, there needs to be involvement with that programme. We are determined to take it forward.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Far from promoting enterprise, the Government's policies in the two years since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took up his job have led to an unprecedented collapse in farm incomes, a massive loss of jobs in the countryside, the closure of dozens of slaughterhouses and the destruction of many family farms after generations of hard work. Does the Minister of State agree that only a genuine attack on red tape, the introduction of honesty in labelling and firmer action against substandard imports—the three keynote policies of the Conservative party's fair deal for farmers—will effectively promote enterprise in agriculture?

Ms Quin: I have looked at the Conservative proposals for agriculture. They are in three parts: first, action that the Government are already taking; secondly, action that would be declared illegal and would therefore incur heavy fines in the European Court; and thirdly, vague spending commitments that seem to be at odds with what the Conservative financial spokespeople are offering the electorate.

Pig Industry

Mr. Phil Hope: When he expects to open the pig industry restructuring scheme to applicants. [131268]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme will be opened to applicants immediately following European Commission clearance of the scheme. The ongoers element for those who wish to remain in pig production will involve preparing a commercially acceptable business plan. We are pressing the Commission to provide overall clearance as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for recently meeting farmers—and pig farmers in particular—from my constituency. It was helpful. We are pursuing some of the concerns, but she will be aware that the Tory legacy of BSE has imposed production costs on the pig industry of more than £5 per pig, which has made it far harder for the industry to compete.
The pig industry restructuring scheme has come as welcome news to the pig industry in my constituency. As she said, it is in two parts: the outgoers element and the ongoers element. The key question for my local farmers is how quickly we can get on with it. They want to be assured that when applicants have made their applications for the grant element, those applications will be processed quickly—decisions should be made quickly—so that they can plan their futures. Can she assure me that decisions will be made in all possible haste once the scheme starts?

Ms Quin: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I welcome the interest that he has taken in the industry and in putting forward the views of his constituents. We have sought to help the industry in a number of ways. I am glad that, in terms of the pig industry restructuring

scheme, we are talking not just about the £26 million available this year, but the additional £40 million in the two following years.
We believe that we have sought to help the industry in all possible ways. Indeed, the House might be interested to know that the Ministry won its case in the judicial review that the pig industry initiated against us. We believe that we have acted correctly. We want to help—and believe that we are helping—the industry through the very bad times that it has experienced. We want a successful British pig industry for the future.

Miss Anne McIntosh: May I say a special thank you to you, Madam Speaker? You have been a brilliant role model for the ladies in the House, and you will be sorely missed.
Given that we have had the results of the judicial review, can the Minister tell us when she thinks pig fanners will know the result of the decisions referred to by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope)?

Ms Quin: The period concerned is likely to begin at the end of August, which marks the end of the period of consultation and clearance with the European Commission.

Mr. David Taylor: I shall not take up the House's time by referring to your warm, witty and wise time in the Chair, Madam Speaker.
Although the rise in pigmeat prices from less than 60p a kilogram in September 1998 to more than £1 a kilogram is welcome, there have been extensive losses in the last two years. The National Pig Association estimates that it will take seven years to recover those losses, even given the current price.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the import ban suggested by the Conservative party constitutes an illegal cul-de-sac? Does she also agree that there should be major reform of the European labelling regime, which is not just inadequate but misleading and counter-productive?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right: the suggested ban would be an illegal and, indeed, dangerous cul-de-sac, given that we export pigmeat products and would risk retaliation if we took the Opposition's advice.
My ministerial colleagues have been actively dealing with the labelling issue. As a result of verification work in the Ministry, a number of misleading labels have been withdrawn and replaced by accurate descriptions. We have been active, and I believe that marketing, advertising and the practical help that we have given the pig industry are producing results. I welcome the recent firming of prices to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. James Pake: I associate myself with all that has been said about you, Madam Speaker, and about your stewardship in the Chair. I add my thanks.
Rumours abound that the Government might cut and run in October. If they are accurate, we may also be witnessing the last Question Time presided over by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Lest that should prove to be the case, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his future career.
As we know, the pig outgoers scheme was the subject of debate between Ministers and the Commission throughout the early part of the year. It was announced at the end of March as part of the action plan. Now, four months on, the scheme has still not been agreed with Europe. No applications have been made, and until and unless the outgoers element is completed there will be no information for those remaining in the industry, and no opportunity for them to obtain any money. Can the Minister tell us when she expects outgoers to receive cheques, and when she expects there to be a scheme involving a sum for which those remaining in the industry can apply, and which will help them to continue?

Ms Quin: I look forward to the Government helping agriculture and, indeed, other industries, both before and after the election, whenever it occurs.
We have been pursuing the matter speedily in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman knows what is involved in the procedures and the consultations. We have also done a great deal of preparatory work to ensure that, when clearance is received, we can start processing the outgoers bids as quickly as possible. We do not intend to be idle during the summer recess.

Dairy Regime

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: What his priorities are for the next reform of the common agricultural policy dairy regime. [131270]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government's priorities for reform of the dairy regime are clear and well known. We want an orderly removal of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in the European Union support prices to world levels. We will press the European Commission and our EU partners for that in the run-up to the review of the regime in 2003.

Mr. Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the provision of free school milk is a valuable service? May I take this opportunity to congratulate him on seeing off a European Commission proposal to abolish the subsidy of free school milk? May I also ask him whether he will take the action necessary to ensure the continued provision of free school milk?

Mr. Brown: I was very pleased that, working with partners on the Council of Ministers, I was able to persuade the Commission to change its mind on the school milk proposal. Rather than abolishing the measure entirely, which was the Commission's original proposal, or moving to co-financing on a 50:50 basis, which was the Commission's next proposal, we were able to negotiate that upwards to the proposal that was agreed on Monday at the Council of Ministers.
I am very pleased that that was a successful outcome for the United Kingdom. It just goes to show the value of working with our partners in the European Union and putting a measured case before the Commission, rather than adopting the alternative approach, which is to fall out with everyone else and try to thwart everything that happens, even if it is to our national advantage.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the reform deal was described by the Select Committee on Agriculture as a bad deal, that the right hon. Gentleman himself declared that it was disappointing, and that fraud is pervasive throughout the system, why does not the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that the CAP no longer stands for common agricultural policy, but for charter for amoral pilfering?

Mr. Brown: There is actually a good point beneath all that eurosceptic nonsense. The fact is that there is a sound case for a common agricultural policy across the EU. The important thing to do is to secure reform of the current structures so that they are not so oriented towards the supply side. The point to which I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention is that, despite our many differences in this place, there is near unanimity around the Government's proposals for reform of the dairy sector.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If milk quotas went, would there be over-production of milk?

Mr. Brown: I think that the market would quickly deal with that question, although we are in a relatively strong position compared with our European Union partners.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the Minister agree that the only ones who seem to make money out of the current quota system are the quota brokers?

Mr. Brown: One of the unattractive features of the current quota regime is that the quota itself—the permit to produce—has an economic value. That is an inevitable outcome of the current structure and a part of the underpinning of the case for reform.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely essential that we reform the current milk quota system before admitting other countries to the European Union? Will he also confirm that, at times, the current milk quota system has led to our importing too many added-value milk products which we could have produced in this country had there not been a milk quota system?

Mr. Brown: Those are very important points. There are enormous advantages for the industry domestically in reform of the dairy regime. Although I do understand why some diary producers are nervous about it, it is the right way forward. I also think that it is the most intellectually appropriate way of dealing with the problems that are posed by the agricultural component of enlargement of the European Union. The two big questions seem to me to be the digressivity of direct payments and reform of the dairy regime.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I come from one of the prime dairy counties of the United Kingdom—Cheshire, which is in the north-west. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole of the United Kingdom has the perfect climate to produce good grass, and that good grass is the basis of good milk? Does he agree that any reform should take account of the fact that the United Kingdom as a whole is the right area for milk to be produced? Will he assure me, the House and


my constituents that any reform will take that into account—so that the countries which can produce good milk because of their climate and grassland are able to do so, and no system is put in place that will discriminate against us?

Mr. Brown: I agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest effects on the profitability of dairy farming has been the disastrous drop of the price of milk by a third in the past two years? Does not the fact that there is a 20 per cent, advantage to supermarkets in importing milk, because of the euro, mean that the quickest way to get dairy farming back into profitability would be for Britain to join the euro?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the price per litre that the food chain pays the producer is at the heart of the present difficulties in the dairy sector. I have done everything that I properly can to alleviate the burdens on the industry, such as the hygiene charges. We have used agrimonetary compensation to its fullest extent as a countervailing measure. I know that the industry has welcomed cattle passports as well. Further, I have made representations to the retailers and processors—important players in the chain—to try to get them to understand that every component of the supply chain has a vested interest in the well-being and commercial returns of other elements in the chain. Further than that, as a Minister, I cannot go. I have certainly gone as far as I can.

Farmers' Co-operatives

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Government support for fanners co-operatives. [131271]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Co-operatives and other forms of collaborative activity can provide a significant boost to the competitiveness of our farmers and growers. Government and industry are working together in a number of ways to facilitate and promote such working together.

Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Farmers First co-operative has done a great deal to help the industry, especially with the opening of a new abattoir in Kenilworth, which is used by many of the farmers in my constituency? Does he agree that the objective 1 funding that the Government have secured for Wales provides great opportunities for further co-operative work in investing in abattoirs and other new infrastructure that is needed to support the industry?

Mr. Morley: I strongly support my hon. Friend. The Government have been supporting the development of collaborative marketing and co-ops through the agricultural development scheme, and further funds will be available through the rural development programme. Match funding has been provided for objective 1 programmes. The nature of the programmes is a matter for local people to determine, but there is no doubt whatever that there are great advantages for farmers and

growers in coming together to try to add value and market their produce so as to get a greater share of the market. Objective 1 funds are certainly one way of helping them to do that.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The great dairy processors of the world, such as Parmalat, Danone and, recently, MD and Aria in Scandinavia, all began as farmers' co-operatives. What is the Ministry's view of co-operatives and farmers' groups attempting to buy Unigate?

Mr. Morley: One of our views is that the previous Government should have thought a little more carefully about the effect on the dairy sector before they destroyed the Milk Marketing Board. There are, however, issues to be considered here. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Competition Commission conducted an investigation that was responded to by allowing the development of three co-ops with the freedom to invest downstream in processing. There is no doubt that that brings advantages for dairy producers.

Abattoirs

Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement about his policy towards small and medium-sized abattoirs. [131273]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized abattoirs to the rural economy and have therefore put in place a number of measures to help, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material removal; freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges last year and maintaining them at no more than the rate of inflation this year; promoting with the European Union Commission a risk-based approach to meat hygiene legislation; reviewing the level of inspection in low-throughput abattoirs; and setting up a taskforce to explore a capping approach to meat hygiene charges for small abattoirs.
The taskforce report—the Maclean report—has just been presented to the Government. Together with colleagues in other Departments, we are now considering its recommendations on the way forward for this sector of the abattoir industry.

Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the urgency of the Government and the Food Standards Agency responding to the Maclean report on veterinary inspection charges, which recommended a change from hourly payments to headage fees? Given that such a change would benefit small and medium-sized abattoirs and give them a real bonus for their future, will she give the matter some real priority?

Ms Quin: I assure my hon. Friend that we will do so. Obviously, that involves different agencies and Departments considering the Maclean report recommendations, but we are very conscious of the importance of those recommendations to a vital sector of the industry.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am aware that Agriculture Ministers are looking at alternative approaches to charging for meat inspection in small and medium-sized abattoirs, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. For many abattoirs, the sands of time are running out. According to figures recently provided to me by Health Ministers, there has been a pronounced acceleration in abattoir closures during the past six months. I am also told by Health Ministers that, ironically, at a time when abattoirs are being forced out of business, the number of veterinary officers employed in the veterinary service has increased from an average of 486 in the first six months of 1999 to an average of 516 in the last six months. In other words, there are 30 extra vets at a time when operators are being driven out of business by the imposition of charges that they simply cannot sustain.

Ms Quin: I recognise the personal interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the issue and I welcome the number of times that he has raised it. Perhaps he should have raised it with his right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in government and presided over a huge number of abattoir closures—far more than the present Government. I hope that he welcomes the recent statements by Commissioner Byrne on moving towards risk-based assessment and being sensitive to some of the cost implications of the European system. We can help to solve some of the problems and redress the balance in terms of future costs by working with the Commission and responding to the recommendations in the Maclean report.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The growth of organic farming, particularly in my constituency, means that there is a real need for locally based abattoirs selling directly to the market and producing the added value that we want in Wales. Will the Minister seriously consider the move towards headage payments and bear in mind the lack of clarity in respect of other European countries? If I can put it this way, it seems that other European countries are getting away with it in respect of the hygiene standards that we apply and that there is no level playing field in respect of abattoirs in other countries.

Ms Quin: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I know that Commissioner Byrne is very much focused on the need for a level playing field, and that approach partly lies behind some of the initiatives that he has announced. Obviously, there is an important responsibility for the devolved Administration in Wales. The hon. Gentleman and others will want to know that we are supporting the development of mobile abattoirs, particularly in remote rural areas, and that we are working with the Humane Slaughter Association to help bring about that service.

Exeter Office

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What recent discussions he has had with staff at his Department's office in Exeter about reorganisation of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [131274]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Monday 24 July, Official Report, columns 472–73W. As he knows, because he was present, I last met union officials in Exeter on Saturday 8 July and I have met and corresponded with other hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest in the reorganisation.

Mr. Bradshaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise decision to keep the Exeter MAFF office open and convey on behalf of the staff in Exeter and the wider community their heartfelt thanks for his vote of confidence in their work. Will he say something about the reports that we might get even more jobs in Exeter as a result of the restructuring? That would be extremely welcome in a city that suffered so grievously under Government job cuts under the Conservatives, particularly in respect of defence.

Mr. Brown: The sites that will be the basis for the new—CAPPA—Common Agricultural Policy Payments Agency proposals can expect an inflow of employment, although the numbers are not yet finally decided. Clearly, however, all the jobs that are at present on the site are safe and there is a real prospect of new jobs being created.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of all farmers in Cornwall and Devon I also welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he take a step further in recommending to the Government generally that the way in which the regional service centres operate must be more closely aligned to the work of other Government agencies in the south-west as in other regions? I also congratulate the Minister's staff in the regional service centres on the work that they do. Does he recognise that they too have a problem in that they are often unable to use their own discretion and common sense in deciding on the issues that come before them? All too often they feel that they are too restricted by the regulations and prevented from using their intelligence.

Mr. Brown: A number of things struck me in making this series of difficult decisions. First, all Members of Parliament with a legitimate constituency interest perfectly properly made representations on behalf of their area offices, as did hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies. Secondly, I was deluged with representations from user groups speaking up for the services that they received from their regional offices. In part, that conditioned the Government's response to the representations received.
I considered the question of closer working with Government offices alongside the proposals for changes in the administration of the common agricultural policy payments through the regional offices and the intervention board. I intend to move the regional directors and policy support staff into the Government offices of the regions. That reorganisation is now being discussed. In addition, I want to retain a regional presence in each region, although not necessarily in the Government offices of the regions. That presence will provide a face-to-face interface with the client groups—an element of the representation that came through very strongly. Also, that regional presence will carry out the all-important work on the rural development regulation, by which I set enormous store.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Football Hooligans

Mr. John Bercow: What discussions he has had with representatives of the police on prosecution policy in respect of football hooligans. [131293]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes those accused of football-related offences whenever appropriate. It also plays a key role in seeking suitable bail conditions to prevent further offending and in reminding the courts of their powers and duties to make orders to prevent hooliganism, both at home and abroad. I have received no representations from the police on the subject.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, which was a triumph of diplomacy over candour. I hope that he will now answer the question that I posed instead of the one that I did not. What discussions has he had, or does he intend to have, with the police? What criticisms of Government policy does he expect to hear? Why, given that anti-social behaviour orders have become a non-event under this Government, should we take the Government's intentions on this matter remotely seriously?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman does not often allow facts to stand in the way of rhetoric, but the Government have pursued the matter since the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 came into force. The CPS has prosecuted cases involving ordinary offences arising from football hooliganism, such as assault, public disorder and criminal damage. The police refer cases to the CPS, which deals with them as the law requires—by looking at the evidence and taking into account the public interest.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many football clubs now have more police-free matches than ever before, because discussions with police have led to a reduction in violence? No one condones the actions of the minority hooligan element, but people want action to be taken where necessary to ensure that hooligans do not deter normal supporters from going to games and do not cause disturbances in town centres.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the Football (Disorder) Bill, which the House will consider again today, the Government have taken what we regard as the minimum steps needed to deal with the public order problem that has infuriated and shamed the nation. The Opposition have been playing games with the Bill, but I hope that it will be dealt with efficiently and effectively this afternoon.
I should tell the House that, since the 1999 Act came into force, some 255 domestic football banning orders have been obtained, and 36 international orders.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Solicitor-General agree that if the police and judges were

half as tough in dealing with hooligans and miscreants as Madam Speaker has been in dealing with the parliamentary variety of the species, the world would be a better, safer and saner place?

The Solicitor-General: On this, Madam Speaker's last Question Time, I have only words of commendation about her, especially as we both represent part of the Tipton area in the west midlands.
The courts deal with these matters effectively. Sentencing is a matter for the courts; it is not a matter in which the Executive should have a role.

Sentencing Referrals

Shona McIsaac: What criteria the Law Officers apply when determining whether or not to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. [131294]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if we consider them to be unduly lenient. An unduly lenient sentence is one which is not merely lenient but falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, applying his or her mind to all the relevant circumstances of the case, could reasonably consider appropriate. The appropriate range must be determined by consideration of the principles of sentencing and other guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal.

Shona McIsaac: I have been prompted to ask the question by unduly lenient sentences for sex offences, and sex offences involving children. No doubt many right hon. and hon. Members have received representations from families and victims who rarely believe that a sentence is appropriate. Are families and victims consulted in these distressing cases, and are there any plans to extend powers in relation to sex offences and sex offences against children?

The Solicitor-General: Unduly lenient sentences come to us for referral from the Crown Prosecution Service or, in some cases, from victims and relatives of victims who write asking for the sentence to be considered. We act at the prompting of victims and relatives and of the CPS.
On sex offences, an order was laid the other day that will come into force by October. It extends the range of sentences that can be considered by us to be unduly lenient and can therefore be referred to the Court of Appeal. The range includes sentences for drug trafficking, illegal importation of pornographic material involving children and for offences specifically against children, such as unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, inciting a girl under 16 to have incestuous intercourse and gross indecency with a child.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Can the Law Officers take any steps in respect of judges who persistently pass inappropriate sentences, whether too lenient or too harsh? I have in mind the recent case of a headmistress who slapped a pupil who was attacking her in the classroom and was threatened with jail. Does that


not show that some judges are almost as out of touch with public opinion as this Government are increasingly seen as being?

The Solicitor-General: If anyone is out of touch with public opinion it is Conservative Members.
As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has since disappeared, we cannot interfere with the judiciary. The independent judiciary is a very valued feature of our system but, in particular cases, unduly lenient sentences can be referred. I do not think that the figures would show that the sentences passed by particular judges are being referred more than once.

Dr. George Turner: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it is rare to be able to talk to the victims of crime or to those who apprehend the criminals. However, they raise the problem, as they perceive it, of overly lenient sentences. I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that action was taken only if the judge strayed outside the prescribed range of sentences. That must cover a multitude of possible degrees of guilt. Is there not a case for allowing the questioning of a sentence, even when it is within the prescribed range, if it is not appropriate?

The Solicitor-General: Sentencing depends on particular circumstances. A whole range of circumstances applies to manslaughter, for example—a death might be akin to murder, or it might follow from fortuitous circumstances. The range of circumstances in any particular case is quite wide. Therefore, the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal are similarly broad, giving a range of sentences. It is only when the sentence falls outside that range, given the particular circumstances, that we refer the matter. My hon. Friend is right that the courts sometimes do not seem to take into account the facts of the case. However, the facts are often mediated through the press and we do not get a full report.

Mr. Edward Gamier: At the risk of giving you praise, thanks and congratulation fatigue, Madam Speaker, may I add my own heartfelt and sincere thanks, praise and congratulations on your long and successful period in office and wish you a very long and happy retirement from your duties in this House?
Is the Solicitor-General considering yet further widening the range of offences for which unduly lenient sentence applications may be made by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to the Court of Appeal, beyond the order that he has just announced?

The Solicitor-General: In our manifesto, we said that we would look at the matter. We considered it, and the three areas that I identified came immediately to mind for extension. There are problems in terms of resources and work load, in that the Attorney-General and I have to consider each application. The number of cases coming to us from victims, relatives and the CPS is tending to increase every year. However, we certainly have not excluded a further extension of the offences that can be referred.

Mr. David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am concerned

about judicial inconsistency. Is there not a strong case for more use to be made of fixed penalties, whether they are applied through an administrative mechanism or through the courts themselves?

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, there are a certain number of mandatory sentences. Fixed penalties have been effective in terms of a number of less serious offences. There is no reason why other offences should not come within the net.

Prosecutions (Staffordshire)

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the CPS's success rate in prosecutions in south Staffordshire. [131295]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): In the year ending March 2000, the south Staffordshire branch of the Crown Prosecution Service secured 11,228 convictions in magistrates courts, representing 98.7 per cent, of all cases proceeding to a hearing. A further 596 convictions were recorded in the Crown court, amounting to 87.8 per cent, of hearings. These figures indicate that the service is making a strong and effective contribution to criminal justice in that part of the country.

Mr. Fabricant: The Government are becoming renowned not only for their contempt for Parliament, but for their contempt for traditions. The Solicitor-General will be aware that the magistrates court in Lichfield closed a few months ago, after 600 years of progress. When will he meet the witness service in Staffordshire, which tells me that it is becoming increasingly difficulty to get witnesses to travel from Lichfield to Tamworth and other parts of Staffordshire and the west midlands to give evidence? When will he accept that his Government's decision to close Lichfield magistrates court was the wrong decision?

The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned strongly on this matter, although the strength of the argument does not increase with repetition. There is a tension between efficiency and effectiveness in the processing of cases through the courts on the one hand and local justice on the other. A balance has to be struck and, in the case of Lichfield, the balance was struck by a decision to close the court. That was only after a careful evaluation of the need for witnesses to travel distances to other courts. I believe that the decision was a right one.

Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend recall the times that I have pressed him to increase the funding for Staffordshire's CPS? Will he say how last week's magnificent settlement in the spending review will help the CPS to employ more prosecutors and be more effective in prosecuting offenders?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot disagree that the settlement was magnificent, and the result is a 12 per cent, real-terms increase for 2001–02, which will continue over the three years of the comprehensive spending review. The result for front-line services in Staffordshire, and elsewhere, is that the CPS will now be able to prosecute


more cases. When the CPS was established by the previous Government, it was underfunded. We have redressed that problem.

Mr. John Burnett: Presumably the success rate of the CPS in south Staffordshire is among the matters considered by the chief inspector of the CPS, will

the Solicitor-Given arrange for the chief inspector to make an urgent report into CPS efficiency and morale, publish it as soon as possible?

The Solicitor-General: As a result spending on the CPS, morale has risen enormously. The CPS is now in a position to play its role in the criminal system.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the first week after the recess?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the first week after the summer recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 OCTOBER—The House will meet to elect a Speaker.
TUESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 27 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 30 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Rural White Paper and the Eleventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Urban White Paper, followed by a debate on the Ninth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee on the proposed public-private partnership for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the summer recess will be:
THURSDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on the Third Report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the double jeopardy rule.
THURSDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Third Report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business for the first week back, and for the hint of the business for the following week.
I welcome the debate on defence procurement. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we will also have the normal two-day defence debate during the spill-over session? Will that take place on a defence White Paper?
May we have a debate on early-day motion 1027, which has been has been signed by two former Home Secretaries and a former Attorney-General?
[That this House condemns the Home Secretary for his statement during the second reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill that the bill enjoyed "the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham" (Official Report, Volume 345, No. 58, column 886), when correspondence between the Noble and Learned Lord and the Home Secretary now shows that this was not the case; and calls on the Home Secretary to apologise to the Noble and Learned Lord, and to the House.]
Before we rise, may we also have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his decision to recommend a royal prerogative of mercy for James McArdle, who was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 1998 following the docklands bombing in which two civilians were killed? That decision has aroused the deepest concern, and the House expects a full explanation.
Today sees the publication of the Government's response to the Sutherland commission on long-term care, which is of great interest to the House and our constituents. Can the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on it?
Can the Leader of the House shed any light on the likely date of the state opening of Parliament?
Finally, today's Order Paper contains two written questions about the future of the dome. It would be quite wrong for a decision to be slipped out by written answer as the House rises for the summer. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will make a full statement to the House tomorrow to explain how much or how little the taxpayer will receive from its disposal?

Mrs. Beckett: I can confirm that there will be a two-day debate on defence, but cannot say on what document it will be taken.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on an early-day motion calling on the Home Secretary to make an apology. My right hon. Friend has already dealt extensively with that matter in debate in the House, and I see no need for a further debate.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot anticipate granting that request. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that, had it not been for the action taken by my right hon. Friend, Mr. McArdle would have spent longer in prison than those who were convicted at the same time as he was—the co-defendants who were convicted at the same time, two of whom were given longer sentences.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the royal commission on long-term care. I am aware that the House takes an on-going interest in that matter. I cannot promise an early debate on it, however, nor indeed can I give him more illumination on the state opening, although that will no doubt be addressed in the overspill period.
On the dome, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions anticipates answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) later today. I am surprised at the suggestion that the House would want a statement tomorrow, particularly as it comes from those on the Conservative Benches, who normally resist statements on a Friday.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that many of us believe strongly in the principle of rotation of the speakership, which means that we will support only a Conservative or Liberal candidate as Speaker—that will mean saying no to some good friends. With that in mind, would my right hon. Friend invite the Procedure Committee to meet during the recess, which I understand is possible, to consider a revision of the rules and make a recommendation so that the House can convene during the recess to agree that?


Then, when we return after the recess, we can deal with the speakership under the new rules. Some of us feel strongly and are most unhappy about the way in which matters may proceed.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that for about 35 years the speakership has alternated across the House. I was not aware of the large number of Labour Members who believe that that is an important principle because it is not a matter for the Government; it is very much a matter for the House. Therefore, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, as I am sure the House will be.
My hon. Friend makes an important suggestion about inviting the Procedure Committee to meet during the recess. I will properly consider it, as he would expect. However, the Committee met after the election of the present Speaker and considered these matters very carefully. It concluded that it ought not to recommend a change. While I understand my hon. Friend's wish for the matter to be considered again, my immediate off-the-cuff reaction is that just before a further election—I realise that he will see the irony of this—is not the time to do it. It is a matter that ought to be considered carefully and thoroughly.
I am mindful of advice that I received some time ago as to the errors that one should avoid in government. I learned that what drove the Conservative party into the poll tax was the assumption that there must be a better system than the rates. The assumption that lies behind my hon. Friend's question is that there must be a better system of electing the Speaker and I am not sure that he is right.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I believe that there will be widespread support for the views expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on both sides of the House.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, after the great and good had their opportunity yesterday, may I say how much I regret the fact that this will be the last occasion on which I have the opportunity to address you in that way?
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read very carefully Madam Speaker's wise words to the House about the proper scrutiny of legislation? Is the right hon. Lady really satisfied that this week, and indeed in October, the House will have a proper opportunity to scrutinise some extremely important legislation, which raises important issues of great principle about which many hon. Members have considerable concerns? For example, in the crowded legislative timetable that is still ahead of us and the other place, has she considered which Bills may be eligible for carry-over? As Chair of the Modernisation Select Committee, she will be aware that if there is cross-party agreement, Bills can be carried over to a subsequent Session. Will she give a firm undertaking that she and the Government recognise that it is more important to get it right than to get it quick?

Mrs. Beckett: I did indeed take note—as, I hope, did the House—of Madam Speaker's remarks about the scrutiny of legislation, and that it is one of our key functions and it is important that we get it right. I agree too that it raises important principles for the way in which

we structure and make the most efficient use of our time. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to address that matter.
I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman repeating the Conservative party propaganda that this is a crowded Session. During the parallel year under the previous Parliament, there were 37 Bills; there were 43 in the subsequent year. Of course, it is important that we give legislation proper and full consideration, but the notion that the number of Bills before the House is unusually great is not borne out by examination of the figures.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about carry-over, but he will be aware that the Government expressed the view that that could be done only by consent. He will also be aware that such consent is not always forthcoming.

Mr. Eric Forth: Correct.

Mrs. Beckett: I note the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention confirming that point. I simply remind Conservative Members of the recommendation of Professor Lord Norton, to whose report they said they attached much importance.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House suggest when a decision is likely to be made on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese? That is an important issue.
As speculation and excitement will inevitably grow about the election of a Speaker—the first item of business when we return—and touching on my right hon. Friend's earlier comment, does she agree that the best advice for those on both—I emphasise both—Front Benches is not to try to influence the outcome? Members should be allowed—as I hope that we will be—to make our own decision. On the two previous occasions, the House came to a wise and sensible decision and I am sure that we shall do the same when we return.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has constantly pressed the issue of compensation for Japanese prisoners of war. I shall again draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I understand that, as yet, no decision has been made, although, as my hon. Friend is aware, the matter is under active consideration.
On the election of a Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed in the strongest possible terms the view that it is certainly not a matter for the Government, but for the House. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unwise for parties to try to intervene officially. I share entirely his view that on the previous two occasions we made wise decisions. I am confident that we shall do so again.

Mr. Michael Howard: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that she gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on early-day motion 1027? May I remind the right hon. Lady that, during the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Home Secretary told the House that the measure had the active endorsement of the then Lord Chief Justice? However, correspondence


subsequently made public showed beyond any doubt whatever that that was not the case. In view of her responsibilities to the House, will she ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the House to apologise for giving us such completely inaccurate information?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my function here is to discuss what business ought to be before the House. Although I know that he attaches importance to the matter that he raises, the House has had an opportunity to air and consider it.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House set aside the business scheduled for tomorrow in order to discuss the urgent matter raised in early-day motion 1033?
[That this House welcomes the measures taken by the Government to raise pensioners' incomes, but notes that for five out of six pensioners, who do not receive income support, the additional basic pension payable in 2000–01 if the link with earnings had been restored in 1998 would be more than the combined value of the £150 winter fuel payment and free television licence for that year—£119 more for a couple aged 75 or over and £162 more for a couple under 75; notes the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th July that next year's pension increase is a matter for further consultation; and urges the Government to undertake that consultation without delay.]
The motion notes the generosity of the Government in granting pensioners a winter fuel payment of £150, plus the free television licences. However, it notes the surprising fact that, had those payments not been made and, instead, the link between earnings and pensions been restored from 1998, five out of six pensioners would have been better off. There is a need for urgency, because there is widespread dismay among pensioners that, although—as a result of the Government's good economic policies—the Government have been generous in giving major sums to many causes, pensioners seem to have been neglected. That is surprising because it has been made clear that the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings is overdue and easily affordable.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that, over the course of this Parliament, the Government will have made available to pensioners more resources than would have been case had we simply restored the earnings link. He will also be aware that those resources have been made available disproportionately to the least well-off among the pensioner community, because the Government felt that the plight of those pensioners was so severe that they deserved urgent help. However, my hon. Friend will also know that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed, the Government will publish further plans for a new pensioner credit in the autumn.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the House said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire that the matter had been very adequately aired. I have to say, however, that the Home Secretary considered the matter

in his first speech—some of us thought that a little odd, given that it was on the timetable motion—and had limited time to reply at the end of that debate. One should also note that after answering the first intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), he did not give way to him again. Therefore I think that, to be fair to the Home Secretary, he has not actually had an adequate opportunity to respond to the views of the House on this matter.

Mrs. Beckett: I say with the greatest possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman that he has identified that the Home Secretary has already dealt with the matter in the House on two occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO.] He may not have dealt with it to the satisfaction of Opposition Members, but that is not the point.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Is the Leader of the House aware that an excellent report was produced yesterday, entitled "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences"? Will she undertake to provide some time when that report can be adequately debated in the House?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I admit that I have not had the opportunity to study the report, which, as she knows, is a report to the Government which we have issued for consultation, but I agree that it is important. She will know that the Government are anxious to strengthen the law that protects children in particular, and I am confident that people will consider the report in that light.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that when we return, there will be an opportunity to debate both on a substantive motion and a free vote the reports of the Liaison Committee and the Modernisation Committee?

Mrs. Beckett: I anticipate that the House will be able to discuss both those reports at some point.

Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are pushing through a policy of transferring council house stocks into the private sector, and that many of us on the Labour Benches are extremely unhappy about what we see as a massive privatisation, which means that that stock will not be subject to any kind of democratic accountability. May we have a debate about that when we come back, so that those on the Labour Benches who are disappointed with that decision can argue that we should be investing massive sums directly into public housing, instead of hiving it off to the private sector?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that we have invested an extra £5 billion in housing and made resources available to refurbish a further 300,000 homes. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the overspill for an early debate on that issue, but he will know that, fairly early on, there will be questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Paddy Ashdown: I have no wish to introduce a note of gloom into the prospect of our summer holidays, but may I please draw the attention of the Leader of the


House to the fact that, following President Milosevic's illegal attempts to seek to change the constitution of Montenegro, tension in that country is now rising alarmingly? That is causing widespread concern. I fear that, unless real restraint is shown by both sides, over the next few months we shall see conflict—very possibly war—in Montenegro. In view of the proximity of British troops and of the implications that such a conflict would have for western policy in the Balkans, may we have the right hon. Lady's assurance that if, God help us, that conflict breaks out, serious consideration will be given to recalling the House?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We must all hope that such an eventuality does not require our return.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Brian Souter spent almost £500,000 on a referendum on section 28 in Scotland, but is she aware that the conclusions of recent inquiries in Mansfield and Chesterfield into the operation of his Stagecoach buses were highly critical? When I tabled a question asking for a transcript of the decision made by the traffic commissioner as a result of the Chesterfield inquiry to be placed in the Library, I was informed that it could not be done because there was a need to minimise public expenditure. As it would cost only £200, should not fresh consideration be given to that request and will my right hon. Friend pursue it?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has been exercised by the problems that have arisen in his constituency, and I sympathise with his concerns. I share his unexpressed view that Mr. Souter would be better advised to devote his attention to running his company better. I fear that I cannot undertake to grant my hon. Friend's request at this time, but I shall look into the matter and take it up with the relevant authorities.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Leader of the House may not realise it, but she is being unfair to the Home Secretary. On Tuesday night, he was put through the forensic mincing machine by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and, owing to the limited time available, to which my right hon. Friends have referred, he was unable to give an adequate explanation to do himself justice. It appears that he compounded rather than mitigated whatever offence he was guilty of in the eyes of that hon. and learned Gentleman. Surely she would be doing a service not only to the House but to the reputation of the Home Secretary if she permitted him to return to the House before Friday to give a full and candid explanation of what is recorded in Hansard at column 886 of his Second Reading speech.

Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the Home Secretary dealt extensively with the matter. Irrespective of the concern expressed by Opposition Members, it is my job, as the hon. and learned Gentleman perfectly well

knows, to deal with the issue of whether a subject has been raised and dealt with in the House, not how adequately that has been done.

Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on pensions, especially pensions for war widows in the light of this week's announcement that those widows who cohabit and marry will be able to retain their service pension for life? As a sailor's daughter, I feel passionately about the matter, especially as the Conservative party did nothing for war widows in spite of years of being pressured to sort the matter out.

Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. She is right that in a better world it would be possible for us to spend time drawing attention to the fact that, despite the warm words from the Conservative party, a Labour, not a Conservative Government have taken steps to assist war widows. Attractive though the prospect is, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an early opportunity for a prolonged debate on the increasing discrepancies between the written word and the spoken word, especially from Ministers? I have in mind a couple of examples, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members can think of many more. One is the memorandums now spewing from No. 10, which give a written version of events—not least the Prime Minister's thoughts, which seem to be at odds with what he says in public. Another is the matter referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—the apparent discrepancies between the written word of the Lord Chief Justice and the spoken word of the Home Secretary. Surely a debate on those matters, allowing many more examples to be aired and explained, and if necessary, the appropriate resignations to be made, would be beneficial to everyone.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no discrepancy between what is emerging on issues such as the euro and what the Government have been saying in public for many months. The British people will be much more interested in the sharp discrepancy between the continued complaint of the Conservative party that only spin and not substance come from the Government and its determination to talk about spin and not issues of substance, such as the investment that the Government are making in the health service, education and transport and the jobs that have been created as a result of the Government's economic policy.

Ann Clwyd: May we have a clear statement from the Government on their approach to war crimes? We are signed up to the Geneva conventions and we are obliged under the convention on torture to arrest and prosecute anyone on our soil who is accused of torture. Recently, two alleged war criminals have come to Britain. The first is a Rwandan colonel and there had to be a request for his extradition from this country by the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. The second is an Afghan colonel, who is also alleged to have committed serious war crimes. Instead of being vague about this issue,


we need a clear statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Attorney-General and the Home Office on how they approach such matters.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that the Government take these issues very seriously. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early statement—let alone time for one from three Ministers—but she might seek a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall during the overspill period.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Early after the House's return in October, will the Leader of the House call the Home Secretary to ask for a debate on the consequences of the European convention on human rights and its application to road traffic cases? Will she also ask him to reply to a request from a constituent—her son was the victim of death by dangerous driving—that anyone prosecuted for such an offence will face a lifetime ban from driving?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for an early statement, but I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary, who will, I know, respond to them.

Mr. John Grogan: Given the increase of £64 million for the funding of the BBC World Service that was announced in the comprehensive spending review, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future priorities of the World Service?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have long believed that the World Service is one of the jewels in Britain's crown and that it gives us considerable prestige overseas. I was delighted to see the extra funding made available to it by the comprehensive spending review. This issue was not pursued by the Conservative party in government, and that funding would be at risk from the cuts that it intends to make.
My hon. Friend also makes an important point about a debate on the future priorities of the World Service. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House, but he, too, might explore the possibilities of holding such a debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. John Redwood: Can the Leader of the House find an early opportunity when the House returns for Ministers to explain when they think that they must answer questions and when they think that they do not need to bother with any answer at all? We have heard today about the case of the Home Secretary, in which the Government do not reflect the mood of the House, and I have just had a series of six questions on trunk roads in London blocked. They received no answer even though they related to the Government's conduct. Will the right hon. Lady promise a debate on why Ministers will not answer questions and will not even attempt to answer questions? Does that not show contempt for Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: Having had experience of some of the right hon. Gentleman's more arcane and bizarre questions, it has always seemed to me that there is a duty on both sides of the House—a duty to ask sensible questions and, I accept, a duty to provide proper replies. However, as it

became clear to me in the early days of this Parliament that it had not dawned on him that the Opposition get a Question Time for each Department only once a month, I do not take his track record on such matters all that seriously.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: May I press my right hon. Friend on her earlier answer about the timing of a debate in the overspill session on the Modernisation Committee's report—a Committee on which we both sit? The Committee's understanding is that the House needs the opportunity to vote on the report so that, if it chooses to support the Committee's proposals, they can take effect in the new parliamentary Session after the Queen's Speech.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I pay tribute to her for the worthwhile work that she does on the Committee. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to come to a judgment on those matters before the end of the Session.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Government expressed their continuing commitment to the repeal of section 28, following the disgraceful blocking of that measure in the House of Lords. However, in debate and in the Prime Minister's reply to the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the Government have said that they have not decided how to tackle the issue of using further votes in the remainder of the Parliament to make clear the will of the House of Commons.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will let me know when the Government have decided what they will do, but I offer her the use of a ten-minute Bill that I have on 31 October, which could be used to repeal section 28 in a single clause, and to get the House of Lords to think again and to submit to the will of the elected Chamber on this critical human rights issue.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As he knows, I have great sympathy with his stance on the matter. All I can say to him is that while a ten-minute Bill may be an opportunity usefully to air these issues—

Dr. Harris: The right hon. Lady could give it Government time.

Mrs. Beckett: It is not as simple as that when we are dealing with private Member's Bills. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that thought is being given to how we can deal with the matter.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend to do something unconventional? In all the centuries that we have had a Parliament here, only two candidates for Speaker have ever been proposed at one time, but this time there could be a multiplicity of candidates—perhaps as many as 12. Could my right hon. Friend act as an honest broker and go-between to organise hustings in Westminster Hall on the morning of Monday 23 October? [Interruption.] This is a serious point. Will she, on behalf of all hon. Members, invite all the candidates to declare themselves this week so that we


know who is intending to stand for the speakership? When it comes to that historic vote on the afternoon of 23 October, we will then have a clear idea about who we can vote for.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept that this is a matter of great interest. If my hon. Friend looks back, he will find that although there were not many candidates when the votes took place, there had often been a much wider field earlier in the proceedings. I am flattered by his suggestion that I might act as an honest broker, but I have every intention of resisting, as I have from the beginning, any attempt to put me in the middle of this.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is able to come to the Dispatch Box today to explain whether the press reports about the docklands bomber being released are correct, given that it is alleged that it took the Secretary of State's personal intervention to about bring his release? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the disgust that will be felt throughout the country at the release of that man? Is she aware that however honourable the Government's intentions, they give a signal to the country and to terrorists that there are no depths to which they will not sink to appease the men of terror?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will be able to come to the House today. As I said before, Mr. McArdle had co-defendants in the crime of which he was found guilty; they were convicted at the same time, and two who were given longer sentences than him have already been released. I believe that to have been the understanding behind my right hon. Friend's decision. [Interruption.] I am well aware that there are Conservative Members who continue to express outrage at the release of any of those who have been convicted of such crimes. However, I believe that the majority of the British people wish to see the peace process succeed, and that is their priority.

Mr. Peter Bradley: May I take issue with my right hon. Friend's earlier comments about the reform of Standing Orders and the urgency of the need to amend them as they relate to the election of the Speaker? The choice of Speaker that we will make in a few months will largely define the character of the House and the pace of change here for many years to come; it is an extremely serious election. She must be aware that there is widespread concern among all hon. Members about the need to reform Standing Orders, and that many Members want amendments to be made.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Procedure Committee meets in the summer and has the opportunity to prepare proposals for amending the Standing Orders? Will she further ensure that we have an opportunity, before we assemble to elect a new Speaker, to debate and possibly to enact those amendments? If necessary, will she prevail upon the current Speaker to preside over those proceedings so that we can have a seemly election of the next Speaker?

Mrs. Beckett: On a variety of accounts, I am well aware that a number of people have sought to persuade

the present Speaker to change her decision on the timing of her departure and she has resolutely resisted that. Today is the first time that the notion has been put to me that the Procedure Committee should meet and change the rules. I have undertaken to consider that, and will do so. I simply reiterate what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): I am not at all sure that this is the right time to rush through changes to those rules. The existing procedures have been used by previous generations and have worked perfectly well in getting the desired results. They were thoroughly examined after the election of the present Speaker. Although I will consider the matter, I have great reservations about the course of action that my hon. Friend proposes.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Leader of the House make time, during one of the Prime Minister's occasional visits to the Chamber—perhaps this afternoon following his statement—for him to make a clear statement on his determination to force the country to scrap the pound? He has made it clear in his memo that he regards the politics of the matter as overwhelmingly in favour of Britain joining the euro. Will he explain to the House how that can possibly be the case, given that the European Union itself has found that 70 per cent, of the British public oppose British membership of the euro? Will he explain to whom the policy is favourable and why he wants it introduced so quickly?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answers more parliamentary questions than did his predecessor and, as a consequence, is in this House more often. The issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been aired frequently and ad nauseam, and we certainly will not debate it when we return after the recess.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend announced today that we shall debate the Rural White Paper in the context of a report from the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. Although my constituents welcome much of what the Government have done, they are impatient for further action. After 18 years of Conservative Government, with the closure of schools, post offices and shops and the reduction in bus services, they want this Government to spend every penny that the Chancellor has made available. When will we debate the White Paper itself, so that the Government can turn promises into action for rural areas? We are all fed up with the Tories, who just want cuts—the same old cuts, the same old Tories.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the impatience in the countryside to see the Government's further proposals and to know what would be put in jeopardy if the Conservative party were elected. I anticipate a debate on this matter, perhaps during the autumn.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When we return, may we have a debate on the Northern Ireland peace process? The Leader of the House will be aware that not a single bullet nor ounce of Semtex has been handed over, and that punishment beatings continue. Does she think it


right that James McArdle should be released after serving just two years for killing two people in docklands? Is one year per person just?

Mrs. Beckett: I have nothing to add to what I said before: the British people's priority is the peace process.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last Friday, the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill (Lords) was blocked by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), causing widespread anger and disappointment among my Jewish constituents and the wider Jewish community? That modest measure would have brought great comfort to a relatively small number of Jewish women who are chained in marriage by their husbands, who refuse to grant them a divorce. Can my right hon. Friend give them any hope that somehow this measure can be reintroduced at a later stage?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are sympathetic to the view that he has expressed and are concerned about that matter. I can undertake that we will consider it, but he will know that there are difficulties. However, we did not object to the Bill.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Having waited seven months for the Government's response to the reforms proposed by the Neill committee and noting that, in the Government's spin, they say that they will curb the burgeoning hordes of special advisers but make no promise about the date for introducing the necessary legislation before the general election, can we hold an urgent and early debate on the reason why the Government seek to reject a raft of the reforms proposed by the Neill committee?

Mrs. Beckett: Lord Neill has welcomed the degree to which the Government have accepted his recommendations. It is yet again typical that the Conservative party prefers to talk about special advisers, memos and leaks than about the health service, education and jobs, as I am sure the British people have noticed.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend find time to debate the potential use of objective 1 funds, which have been greatly welcomed by industry and agriculture in Wales, so that we can compare this Government's record for Wales in securing objective 1 funding and matching it with £421 million over three years with the record of the previous Government, who did not apply for one penny?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that there will be opportunities to air that important issue in the overspill session. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but he might like to seek one in Westminster Hall, and he might remind people who was the last Secretary of State for Wales under the Conservative Government.

Mr. John Bercow: May we please have a full day's debate in Government time on early-day motions 1042 and 1044, which relate to the possible amendment of the Local Government Act 1988?
[That this House commends the constitutional propriety of the 24 Labour, three Liberal Democrat, six Scottish Nationalist and two other Right honourable and honourable Members from Scottish constituencies, namely the Right honourable and honourable members for Banff and Buchan, Angus, Tayside North, Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton, Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Ochil, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Coatbridge and Chryston, East Lothian, Edinburgh East and Mussleburgh, Eastwood, Edinburgh Central, Dunfermline East, Dunfermline West, File Central, Anniesland, Baillieston, Kelvin, Pollok, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Ross Skye and Inverness West, Renfrewshire West, Midlothian, Moray, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Perth, Paisley South, Clydesdale, Hamilton South, Livingston and Linlithgow, who abstained on the vote on 25th July to preserve section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 in England and Wales, an issue which is devolved to the Scottish Parliament in relation to their own constituencies.]
Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity for 28 Labour Members who represent Scottish constituencies to explain why they supported the retention of section 28 in England and Wales, but its abolition for their own constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say is that I have nothing to add to what I said before. The Government will return to the discussion of such issues in time.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister had frequently outlined the overwhelming political case for the euro in public—a case to which he apparently adheres to in secret. Is not it a fact, however, that all that has ever been said in public is that there is no constitutional bar to Britain joining the euro, which is a very different matter? Will she seek to secure from the Prime Minister an honest statement of the reason why he secretly thinks that there is an overwhelming political case for signing up to the single European currency?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly made the Government's position clear. The Conservative party should not encourage debate on that matter because the more we hear about its pledge to keep the pound for one Parliament, but not necessarily for ever, the sillier it sounds.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Leader of the House grossly underestimates the strength of feeling, as expressed in early-day motion 1027, which was mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
The Home Secretary escaped two days ago only by a slippery and semantic use of the word "it". If he came to the House, we could talk about police numbers because, in April, my police authority was 101 police officers down on April 1997. We could also analyse his use of the words "more", "extra" and "new" when he discusses police officers.

Mrs. Beckett: These matters have been extensively aired and, no doubt, they will be again. I have nothing to add to what I have said already.


Finally, Madam Speaker, on behalf all those who regularly attend business questions, may I say that we shall miss you?

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

NHS Plan

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the national health service plan.
The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour Government. It was based on one solid founding principle: health care should be given on the basis of people's needs, not their wealth. Some objected to that principle then, some would like us to abandon it today, but this side of the House will never abandon what was one of the greatest civilising acts of emancipation this country has ever known. Our task is instead to provide both the money and the reform to make the health service and its founding principle live on and prosper in the 21st century.
As to investment, in March we took a profound decision as a Government. We had sorted out the public finances. Debt service payments were down. Spending on unemployment benefits was down. It was the tough decisions that we took on the economy that gave us the opportunity to make this historic commitment to the national health service—an average real terms increase in spending of 6 per cent. Over five years, the NHS will grow by a third in real terms, the largest ever sustained increase in its funding.
The plan shows how that money will make up for years of underinvestment. Over the next four years, it will provide 7,500 more consultants, a rise of 30 per cent.; 2,000 extra general practitioners; 450 more GP trainees and more to come after that; in time, 1,000 more medical training places each year—on top of the 1,000 already announced—a 40 per cent, increase since 1997; and more than 20,000 extra qualified nurses, to add to the 10,000 extra already in post, making 30,000 extra in total.
For decades, the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment. The plan will mean 3,000 GP premises modernised and 500 new one-stop primary care centres; 250 new scanners for cancer and other illnesses; modern information technology systems in every hospital and GP surgery; 100 new hospital schemes in the next 10 years; and 7,000 more hospital beds in hospitals and intermediate care, including the first increase in general and acute hospital beds in 30 years. That is only possible because we are making this historic investment in our NHS.
Caring better for NHS staff will mean better care for NHS patients. That is why the plan sets out new facilities for staff, starting with 100 on-site nurseries and money for individual training for all staff—not just the professions, but the support staff as well. Our task is to tackle not simply years of underfunding, but years of low morale.
We know that money alone, however, is not the solution. Over the past few months, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—to whose work in drawing up the plan I pay tribute today—have had scores of meetings with NHS staff and professionals, visited hospitals and GPs, and spoken to providers and users of the NHS. Because the issue of funding has been alleviated, at long last, people have been able to lift their heads and look at the system in which they operate.
The NHS staff are magnificent. They are the greatest asset that the health service has. They are indeed the basis of the trust that the British people put in the NHS, but,


in truth, they have been, and often still are, working flat out in a system that is still organised as it was in the 1940s. Today, patients and staff alike expect and demand a wholly different type of service for the new age in which we live.
What is extraordinary is that this is the first time that any Government have looked long and hard at all aspects of the NHS: the absurd demarcations between staff that keep patients waiting; the splits between social services and the NHS that make life misery for many elderly people; the consultants' contracts, largely unchanged since 1948, the issue of private practice and NHS work left unresolved; GPs' contracts being based too much on quantity, not quality; and a standoff between the private sector and the health service that is not in the interests of NHS patients—all difficult issues, all a relic from 1948, all addressed in this plan today.
Each of those issues is faced up to and fundamental reform proposed. The aim is clear: to redesign the health service system around the needs of the individual patient.
First, the role of nurses will be radically enlarged and old barriers to modern working removed. A qualified nurse has had at least three years training. It is wrong that, in many places, nurses are unable to make and to receive referrals, to admit and to discharge patients, to order tests, to run clinics and to prescribe drugs. Those old rules will be swept aside and nurses in every hospital will have that opportunity.
Secondly, let me say something about general practitioners. The vast majority do a superb job, as we all know. They are highly respected, and rightly so. We should never allow the publicity given to the few exceptions to undermine the excellence of GPs' reputation. Butagain—their contract is outdated and inflexible. GPs can do more—they could even do some of the work that is currently undertaken by consultants—and they should have far more freedom in respect of how they use the money that they have.
We aim over time, without compulsion but with clear incentives, to move GPs to a new system of contractual arrangements. The personal medical service contract will reward doctors on the basis of quality of care as well as on the basis of patient numbers, and will give doctors far more flexibility to innovate and change. [Interruption.] This will not be the old two-tier system.
There will also be more salaried doctors. Taken together, the changes I have announced will be the most significant changes in the way in which GPs operate since 1948, and will literally be able to transform primary health care in this country.
Consultants do an extraordinary job for the national health service. Their expertise and immense skill are key to its future. That is why we are increasing consultant numbers by a third, and giving leading clinicians a greater role in the setting of national standards. Again, however, the consultant contract has remained largely unchanged since 1948, and, although most consultants work extremely hard for the health service beyond their contractual commitments, there is no proper management of their time. We will ensure that all consultants have proper job plans setting out their key objectives, tasks and responsibilities; that has never happened before. Moreover, consultants' performance will be regularly reviewed.
Above all, however, we want to reward most those who make the most commitment to the national health service. First, to encourage high standards of performance and use of the new national service frameworks, we are giving consultants, along with others, access to part of the new £500 million performance fund, which will give extra money to those who meet the highest standards of service. Secondly, we will merge the existing distinction awards and discretionary points schemes, and increase their funding. By 2004 we will increase the number of consultants receiving superannuable bonus from less than 50 per cent.—the present number—to about two thirds, and will double the proportion of consultants who receive annual bonuses of £5,000 or more.
Thirdly, we are offering a deal to new consultants. From now on, once a person is newly qualified, that person will be contracted to work exclusively for the NHS for the first few years of his or her service.
Again, those will be the most substantial changes to consultant contracts since 1948.
The next major reform is to remedy the extraordinary situation that means that at any one time thousands of older people are in the wrong place for their needs. They are stuck in hospital, when they could be cared for better in their own homes. For the first time, social services and the NHS will, in every area, use pooled budgets and new arrangements that will ensure that they work together for the good of the patient. When local councils and primary care trusts want to go further and merge into a single organisation, we will enable them to do so by creating new care trusts delivering one-stop care with a unified budget. When partnerships persistently fail to deliver, we will require local health and social services to join in a new care trust.
I thank Sir Stewart Sutherland, who chaired the royal commission on long-term care, and the other members of the commission. A full response is published alongside the health plan.
Today, we are correcting a major injustice in the system. The NHS provides nursing care free of charge for people living in their own home or in hospital. Until now, however, nursing provided in a nursing home has been charged for. That will now change. From October 2001, subject to parliamentary approval, nursing care in nursing homes will be treated as nursing care elsewhere in the NHS—free at the point of use.
Additionally, we are investing in a major expansion of intermediate care prevention and rehabilitation services for the elderly: by 2004, spending on those new facilities will increase to £900 million per year. We shall also, as the commission proposed, expand respite care, benefiting 75,000 carers and those for whom they care.
Taken together, the package amounts to an extra £1.4 billion per year for older people. That is more investment than the royal commission itself called for.
Next, there is a series of reforms aimed at preventing ill health and improving the nation's health, including measures to reduce smoking and improve diet. Central to that are measures to reduce health inequalities. The truth is that the gaps between the health of the poorest and the health of the better off in our society are completely unacceptable in modern Britain. Moreover, it is children who pay the biggest price for those gaps. That is why programmes such as sure start, enhanced maternity grants,


increased child benefit and the new deal for communities are so vital, and why we should fight so hard to protect them against those who would abolish them.
Next, we shall reform treatment of the most serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease. Until now, there have been no national standards for treatment of those illnesses, and the availability of treatment has often been patchy—some people get drugs, others do not; some people are seen quickly, others are not. For each of the main conditions, therefore, there will be a national framework of standards specifying minimum standards of access and the care to which patients are entitled.
The framework for cancer, for example, will entail maximum waiting times that cover not only referral to diagnosis, but diagnosis to treatment; a big expansion in cancer screening and cancer specialists; and an end to the postcode lottery in prescribing cancer drugs. Additionally, 400,000 patients will benefit every year from new equipment for diagnosing and treating cancer. The framework for coronary heart disease will entail an extra £230 million per year by 2004; a 50 per cent, increase in cardiologists; and shorter waits for heart operations.
The national service frameworks will reflect a fundamental change in the relationship between central Government and the local NHS. The centre will do what it must do: set standards, monitor performance, support modernisation, put in place a proper system of inspection, and, when necessary, correct failure. The new Commission for Health Improvement will inspect and report on hospitals, primary care groups and primary care trusts. That information—like information on schools from the Office for Standards in Education—will be available to the public.
If necessary, the worst performing trusts will have new management put in. In future, the 3,000 non-executive board members of trusts and health authorities will be appointed not by the Secretary of State, but by an independent appointments commission. There will also be a new independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on proposed reorganisations of local hospitals and health services.
There will be maximum devolution of power to local health professionals. Over time, primary care groups will move to being primary care trusts, offering minor surgery, physiotherapy, diagnostic tests, and even minor operations in the local primary care centre. For all PCTs, health authorities and hospital trusts, there will be a new system of what is called "earned autonomy" that will radically reduce the amount of central intervention where performance is high. Patients put their trust in front-line doctors, and so do we.
The best performers will be given greater freedom and flexibility, and all will have access to additional funds tied to clear outcomes in performance. That will include a new framework—a concordat—with the private sector. There should be, and will be, no barrier to partnership with the private sector where appropriate—as the private finance initiative hospital building programme has shown. Where the facilities of the private sector can improve care or help to fill gaps in capacity, we should use it, but let me make one thing clear: we will never permit people to be forced out of the health service for non-urgent care. That would destroy the national health service. Where the private sector is used, it will be fully within the national health service, free at the point of use to the patient.
We also examined in detail alternative methods of funding the health service. We concluded that the proposals of some to expand health care through tax incentives for private health insurance were massively inefficient and would take vital resources out of front-line national health service care; and that moving entirely to a continental European type of social insurance system, while less inequitable than many other suggested alternatives, would cost an extra £1,000 to £1,500 per employee per annum. We also estimated that, through the health service, administrative costs are hugely reduced compared with other systems. We were therefore confirmed in our view that what the national health service required was not dismantling but modernisation.
At the heart of the reforms is the idea of redesigning the system round the patient. Too often, whatever the quality of actual care, the patient is catered for in dirty wards on rundown premises, with standards of food and basic amenities far below what would be tolerable in other services. Part of the reforms is designed to remedy that. Clean wards and better hospital food will become central to trusts' work, with new resources to back it up.
That will get under way now. By 2002, 95 per cent, of mixed sex wards will have gone. NHS Direct will be available in all parts of the country. In time, we aim to have the ability to link all parts of the system through technology, so that one call will put the patient immediately through to the right place.
By 2005, booked appointments will have taken the place of the old waiting lists. As a first step, by April 2001, all hospitals will be using booking for two of their major conditions. By 2003–04, two thirds of all appointments must be pre-booked.
By 2004, there will have been an end to long waits in accident and emergency; people will get an appointment with a GP within a maximum of 48 hours; and, if an operation is cancelled on the day it is due to take place, other than for medical reasons, patients will get another one within 28 days or have their treatment funded somewhere else. Patients will also have more say and more choice, with a patient advocate and forum in every hospital to give them immediate help with sorting out their complaints, and a voice in how the hospital is run.
Over time, these changes, plus the money and the staff, will allow waiting times to come down substantially. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an out-patient appointment will be three months, and for an in-patient appointment six months rather than the present 18, with urgent cases being seen the most rapidly.
Average waiting times will, as a result, also come down: from seven to five weeks for out-patients and from three months to seven weeks for operations. There will be reduced waiting times for all conditions—not just some—and our eventual objective, provided that we recruit the staff and make these reforms, is to get the maximum waiting time for any stage of treatment down to three months by the end of 2008.
There are many other proposals for change set out in the plan. It will mean, over time, radical change in the health service, but I emphasise to the country that it will take time. Some changes will be fast, but others are crucially dependent on new investment in staff and facilities coming through. Staff are crucial to this process. Uniquely, the principles that underpin this plan command


the wide support of professions and staff across the NHS, as will be seen from the signatures to the principles at the start of the plan.
There is another cause for optimism: at every level of the health service, there are examples already of where change and reform have made a difference. We know that the plan is achievable because somewhere in the health service it is already being achieved. The challenge has been to remove the outdated practices and perverse incentives that have prevented the best from becoming the norm. I make it clear to all NHS staff: we will carry on with the same system of co-operative working and partnership that has characterised the past four months. This is the beginning, not the end, of that process.
The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world most envies. Now, with the money going in, the reforms can follow so that we can proclaim loud and clear that the idea of decent health care based not on wealth or position, but on need and suffering, is not an old-fashioned principle that has had its day; it is, rather, a timeless principle that this generation has found the courage to reinvigorate for the modern world. That is what we set out in the plan, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but warn Labour Members that in announcements from this Government, there is always a huge difference between the announcement and the facts—[Interruption.] I shall say what some of them are in a minute. There is also a vast gulf between the announcement and what really happens.
We agree with the Prime Minister that the staff of the NHS are indeed its greatest asset. We welcome what he said about changes to the role of nurses and his apparent acceptance of the need to use the private sector when it is of benefit to patients—which comes after years of hypocritical attacks on us for advocating the same idea. However, the importance of looking at the fine print is shown on even a cursory reading of the Prime Minister's statement. Will he confirm that when he refers to 7,000 extra beds, he is including beds in the private nursing sector? He talks about funding nursing care. Will he confirm that the Press Association has been briefed that it will not include dressings and catheters, which will be counted as personal care and not as nursing care? When he says that he will not have a two-tier system of GPs, will he confirm that what he has just advocated involves some of them being salaried and some not, and some providing personal medical services and some not; so how can he lecture others about a two-tier provision? Will he confirm that an extraordinary number of the targets in his four-year plan will not be met for eight or 10 years, if at all?
Will he confirm that, in the fourth summer of his premiership, he has now made a long statement on health to the House without a single mention of the waiting list initiative that has been the centrepiece of his policy for the past three years? Is that not a stark admission of his total failure on health for the past three years?
We all remember that before the general election the Prime Minister said that we had 24 hours to save the NHS—now it is 10 years and a four-year plan. Three years on, the waiting lists to see a consultant are up by 154,000; 80 per cent, of health authorities have more

patients waiting more than a year for operations; the number of cardiac bypass operations has fallen for the first time in a quarter of a century; one fifth of people diagnosed with curable lung cancer are inoperable by the time the treatment begins; the nursing profession is facing its most severe shortages for a generation, and 140,000 NHS patients were forced to pay for private care in the last calendar year.
As the Prime Minister's own adviser summed it up so well:
TB has not delivered. He said that he would improve the NHS but instead things have got worse.
People will judge today's plan against that background of mismanagement and failure.
Of course, selective extracts of the plan were leaked to the newspapers in advance. How extraordinary it is that the Government complain about leaks, when most of the leaking is authorised by the Prime Minister himself. It was therefore already known that the plan would contain more targets even though the current targets have not been met, and more pledges even though the current pledges have not been met. The only difference between the contents of this statement and the pledges in the Labour manifesto of four years ago is that the Prime Minister has set the targets so far in the future that he will not be held to account for whether or not they are met.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister conceded that the next Conservative Government would spend the same as this Government on health. The real debate is about how that money is spent. That is the debate about this plan. We will judge the national plan on whether it really extends patient choice, on whether it really puts clinical priorities ahead of political priorities, on whether it really breaks down barriers with the private sector and on whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much shouting in the Chamber. Hon. Members should calm down.

Mr. Hague: We will judge the national plan on whether it really devolves power away from Whitehall to doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The Prime Minister has a tendency to use words such as "choice" and phrases such as "putting the patient at the centre", but not to deliver in reality. People will naturally be sceptical.
Will the Prime Minister say whether the Government have at last abandoned their disastrous waiting list initiative, of which he made no mention in his statement? Will he assure the House that the plan means that the sickest patients, such as those with cancer or cardiac problems, will be treated first, as we have long proposed?
Secondly, for all his talk—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not good for the Deputy Speaker to interfere, but I appeal to the House. We must be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a hearing. Hon. Members do not have to agree with what he says, but he is entitled to a hearing.

Mr. Hague: Secondly, for all the Prime Minister's brave talk, the plan appears to create a medical apartheid between the private and public health sectors, by prohibiting NHS consultants from working in the private sector. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not


general practice for people to do that in the first five years that they work as consultants? Will he say whether the period of a "few years" to which he referred amounts to fewer than five years? If the period is less than five years, the provision will make no difference. If it is more than five years, it will surely risk reducing the number of consultants working in the national health service. Will not that risk adding to the waiting list?
How does that square with the Prime Minister's stated aim of working with the private sector on problems such as cancelled operations? Should not maximum waiting times include a commitment to use the private sector if the NHS cannot deliver?
The Prime Minister talks about patient power, and says that he will set up a lot of new patient advocacy quangos. However, what is he actually going to do to give patients a real choice about which hospital they are treated in? The director of the College of Health has said:
Patients have less choice now than ever in the National Health Service's history.
Would not the best way to drive up standards be to restore the right of GPs to refer patients to the hospital of their choice—a right abolished by this Government last year?
The Prime Minister said that the Government would pay for nursing care but not for personal care. Will the right hon. Gentleman define those terms, and say how they differ from one another? How much of the care needed by an Alzheimer's patient is the former, and how much the latter?
As well as the rhetoric, the reality of reforming the NHS has to be about patient choice, trusting the NHS professionals, partnership with the private sector, and getting rid of political interference. Instead, is not today's statement the final admission by the Prime Minister that he has broken every promise that he made on health in the past three years? Three years into his Government he has had to start from scratch. Given that absolute failure in the past three years, should he not be assured that the British people will judge him not on what he promises that his plan will achieve, but on what it is likely to deliver?

The Prime Minister: I think we saw that the moment he got on to policy, the right hon. Gentleman did not have a great deal to say. When he is making his jokes and his witty remarks, he can just about do it, but when it comes to serious policy, he really does not have a clue.
First, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party was in power for 18 years when many of these things were being done. Let me also deal with a few of the facts. He was rather coy about mentioning some of them at the Dispatch Box, such as his extraordinary remark the other day that there are 14,000 fewer nurses in the health service under this Government. He did not mention that today, perhaps because he knows that there are 10,000 more today.
Another thing that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention—as I have the answer, I will give it to him anyway—was the nonsense about spending £200 million on the euro. Madam—Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] We are back to that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the costs on the euro are negligible in the national health service. No money is being spent on the euro in the national health service—the money is being spent on the patients in the national health service.
The right hon. Gentleman says that waiting lists have gone up under this Government. Let me again give him the figures. It is true that waiting lists—in-patient and out-patient—had been rising for years when we came to office. We have brought down the in-patient list by more than we promised at the election. It is correct that out-patient lists have gone up; it is correct that they are coming down now. But they were rising year after year after year when the previous Government were in office.
We do not have to argue about the theory—let us argue about the facts. The right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the health service in Wales under the previous Government. What did he do then? The number of general practitioners was cut, he cut 1,200 hospital beds, the in-patient waiting lists went up by 6,000, and he cut by 300 the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
Since we came to office, let me tell the House what we have done in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is the £3.3 million scheme for the conversion of the Friary in Richmond to a community hospital and primary care centre, operational since 23 March 1999. Northallerton health services accident and emergency department has received £600,000. Some £500,000 has been spent on intensive care beds and £180,000 on out-patient modernisation. Shall I tell the right hon. Gentleman what those improvements have in common? They were delivered by us and they would never have been delivered by him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have some calm in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. We are talking about the health service, so we should all watch our blood pressure.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that I conceded yesterday that the Conservatives would match us on health spending. They will not match us on health spending. The right hon. Gentleman has £16 billion worth of cuts to find. He has £1 billion more to find for private medical insurance. He has to find the extra money on tobacco duty, which he refused to support, which makes a £300 million hole in his funds straight away.
What is clear from everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said today, and from what his health spokesman has said, is that on the NHS, the Conservatives are more extreme than ever. They do not believe in the health service—they never did. They would not invest in the health service—they never did. They do not understand the health service—they never did. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not be shouting. [Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the answers of the Prime Minister. Hon. Gentlemen must be quiet.

The Prime Minister: I will repeat what I said. Conservatives do not believe in the health service—they never did. They would not invest in the health service—they never did. They do not understand the health service—they never did. [Interruption.] The problem with the service is that, for 35 of its 52 years, it was run by a


party that did not care enough about the national health service. Well, this party does, and it will be our pleasure to rebuild it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that it is the end of term, but the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) must behave. If he cannot calm himself, he will have to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: There is great symbolism in the fact of this prime ministerial statement today, and the House of Commons, as a whole, should welcome that fact. Is it fair, therefore, to acknowledge that, in the carefully crafted words of the Prime Minister today early in his statement—when he said that the plan shows how the money will make up for years of underinvestment—those years of underinvestment included the first three years of his Administration?
Secondly, when the Prime Minister says—[Interruption.] I hope that Labour Back Benchers will give me the courtesy of attention, because I am attempting to question the Prime Minister on what he said, as opposed to coming up with a pile of pre-prepared, jingoist and simplistic soundbites, paying no attention to the detail involved.
When the Prime Minister says that, for decades, the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment, he should say not that the NHS has failed to invest, but that we have failed to invest. It is the responsibility of the public in terms of the decisions taken at the ballot box, as well as of the Government of the day. Having listened to the Leader of the Conservative party, I am sure that we will have our legitimate differences across the Floor of the House when it comes to public services generally and the health service in particular, but none of us wants to return to the 18 years that preceded the development that we are acknowledging today.
Can the Prime Minister properly clarify whether the national plan includes the provision of personal care for those in long-term care, as was recommended by the royal commission? If it does not, let us be clear what that means in human terms. It means, for example, that a person suffering from dementia would be expected to pay for being bathed, fed and clothed. That is an issue of basic dignity that should be of concern to us all. It is vital that the Prime Minister should be able to confirm that.
In passing, could the Prime Minister confirm how many of those groups—including, for example, those concerned with Alzheimer's—who put their names to the NHS plan have not put their names to the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care? That is a significant consideration, and one that the House needs to hear about. Will every mental health patient be given an absolute right to an assessment of their needs and treatment?
The Prime Minister was silent today on the issue of dentistry. What, if anything, are the Government proposing later this year with regard to that? All of us know, at a constituency level, the real difficulties people are having in even getting registered with a dentist, never mind getting or affording the treatment that follows.
Finally, Madam Speaker—I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker: you are not in danger of calling me "love", I hope—

Dr. Evan Harris: Nothing wrong with that, Charles.

Mr. Kennedy: Following what he said during Business questions, my hon. Friend says that there would be nothing wrong with that.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the report and confirm the commitment of my party—and our whole political and philosophical tradition—to the thinking that led to the formation of the national health service. We want the national plan to succeed: that is in all our interests. If the promises it contains are delivered, there will be better to come for the health service. I share the Prime Minister's hope that better is to come. The whole nation wants that.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's point about underinvestment, I accept that we did not get as much money into the health service as we should have liked during our first two years. However, that happened for the simple, clear reason that we had to make sure that we reduced the enormous deficit in the public finances. If we had not done that, we would not have stabilised the economy, achieved growth and avoided the recession that many predicted. We would not, in fact, have been in a position now to achieve sustainable increases. The right hon. Gentleman is also, of course, right to refer to a failure by Government to invest.
On personal care, the right hon. Gentleman is right. We have committed ourselves to nursing care; but have decided that it is better to spend £900 million on intermediate care rather than making all personal care free. It will be up to the nurse on the ground to decide the difference between nursing and personal care. I am informed—but will get the precise details for the right hon. Gentleman—that seven out of 10 of those who receive personal care will also receive some support.
I will also check the details on mental health, but think it correct to say that people will have the right to have their needs assessed. On dentistry, the position is as I set it out last year. By the end of September 2001, everyone will have access to an NHS dentist.
There are many elements in the plan, and to list them all would detain the House even longer than I have done. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general support, and for the constructive way in which he has approached the issue. To Conservative Members, particularly those who object to what I have said, I say that it would have been easier if we had had something of the same constructive approach from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that I cannot call every hon. Member who wants to speak. The briefer the questions are, however, the more I will be able to call.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement. The strategy that he has outlined is in marked contrast with the ragbag of a fragmented internal market that we were left by the


previous Government. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for his efforts. He deserves much credit for the imagination that went into the plan. I welcome the proposals about consultants' contracts and private practice.
I have one or two detailed questions about the statement. My right hon. Friend will understand that there is some unease on the Labour Benches about the proposed relationship with a private health care sector that has consistently undermined the NHS's basic principles since 1948. Will he say a little more about the proposed concordat? Is it a temporary arrangement, and will it last as long as some of the mental health arrangements with the private sector? If the NHS is short of capacity, why do we not buy capacity on a long-term basis from the private market?
Finally, on long-term care, I warmly welcome the proposals about the relationship between health and social services, which has concerned me for many years.
Picking up on the point made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend answered the question about the definitions of social care and nursing care by saying that the decision would be left to the individual nurse. Does the plan offer a clear definition of those two areas, one of which is means-tested and one of which is free? Otherwise, will there not be some inconsistency in the interpretation of that division?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, I will write to my hon. Friend as I do not want to mislead him in any answer I might give about some of the distinctions, which are complicated. Essentially, we had to choose whether we would fund all personal care in the way that the Sutherland commission anticipated, or whether it was better to use the same amount of money for a range of intermediate care projects. We decided that it was better to do it in the latter way.
I have no doubt that the debate and discussion will continue on the matter, but the commitment of £1.4 billion overall is significant. Of course, the commitment to free nursing care is intended to remove what otherwise has been a basic anomaly in the way in which we have dealt with the long-term care system.
As for the private health care sector, for me the key distinction is between that sector developing or delivering a service within the national health service and people being forced out of the NHS altogether. It would probably be prohibitively expensive to buy out all the private care as my hon. Friend suggests. However, it is also clear that if hospitals can buy in some capacity for the treatment of particular patients—obviously, this happens now to an extent—it is important to have that flexibility for the patient.
On consultants' contracts, the important thing is that, obviously, consultants will carry on with their private practice, but it is right that we contract new consultants to the national health service for the early stages of their careers, provided that we ensure that they are properly and adequately rewarded—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW long?"] As to the number of years, that is precisely what we can now sit down and discuss with them. [Interruption.]

People would complain if we imposed that on them, therefore it is sensible to discuss it with them. In the plan, we say that about seven years is a sensible time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the NHS for the future and the plan that he has put to the House. I am sure that he would accept from me—my credentials in support of the health service are, I think, well known—that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Clearly, people will want to see how the reforms and the plan unwind. Will he assure me and the House that doctors and consultants will have total clinical freedom and that the pressures of bureaucracy put on them by central Government in respect of waiting lists will be removed?
I warmly welcome the additional responsibilities that the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the nursing profession, which could save the health service a great deal of money. Please will he be a little more forthcoming, however, about what is nursing and what is social care when dealing with long-term care for the elderly? To my mind, that matter is critical. Does he not feel that he is putting a great deal of pressure on the nurses who have to make that decision?

The Prime Minister: Probably, it is best that nurses make that decision, as they will be able to assess what care they, as nurses, need to provide. It is probably better to leave that decision to them, obviously with some flexibility, rather than to draw up such tight rules that they would cause more trouble rather than help.
As for consultants, of course they will have the power to determine priority cases. I make no apology for saying, however, that we are trying to get as many consultants as possible to consider new and different ways of working. Every stage of the health service that I have seen in my visits of the past few months convinces me that, by fairly simple changes that are not rocket science, the way in which patients are treated—from the time they first see their GP to the time that they have their operation—could be hugely simplified. Basic protocols and frameworks can be drawn up to allow that to happen.
Obviously, it must be for individual consultants to decide these matters, but it is frustrating when one sees that some practices in the health service have literally abolished waiting lists and times, but that those practices are not universal within the service. That is what we will try to do through the new performance fund. Certainly, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's own commitment to the health service.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that while he, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and others have been touring hospitals to devise this plan, many people have been attending hospital because they had to? During the past 15 months, I have been on a steep learning curve in the NHS. Most of those with whom I sat in queues during those months would give my right hon. Friend seven or even eight out of 10 for today's announcement. By any stretch of the imagination, this is a big day not only for the NHS but, more important, for all those people who have had to use it over the years. People left hospital searching for the blue in the sky—sometimes they never saw it. Today's announcement means that a lot more


people will leave with a smile on their faces, in the knowledge that the health service has been improved—not perfection, but made one hell of a sight better.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he is right. It will take time, but I am sure that we can do it.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As one TB to another, perhaps we can agree to overlook the adviser's memo that suggested that the Prime Minister had failed on the health service.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents how his announcement today will bring them a better health service when, during the past three years, successive announcements made by various Ministers have achieved a local situation in which waiting lists are at best static, the waiting list to get on the waiting list has doubled and the district general hospital is full at the height of the summer?

The Prime Minister: I can explain how it can become better. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman needs in his constituency more hospital staff and better facilities. That is precisely what this investment gives us. If we achieve better working between social services, primary care services and the hospital service, that too will improve the situation. I have not come to the House today to say that everything in the health service is perfect; of course it is not—otherwise we would not need this plan. I hope that we can work to achieve the changes.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman—although I am not sure whether he is too much in agreement with much that is said by Opposition Front-Bench Members—that if he considers—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I may have dealt the hon. Gentleman a career blow. I did not mean to do that; I am sure that he is wholly in agreement with Opposition Front-Bench Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Front-Bench Member."] That is even better—I am afraid I missed that.
If the hon. Gentleman analyses what the Conservatives have promised financially, there is a big division—that is a real issue for Opposition Members. With the strength of the economy, we can either put more money into our essential public services or not. His party have chosen not to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced additional spending of 3.3 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor said that it should be less than 2.25 per cent. That is a fact. On my arithmetic, that means that one third comes off the spending figure. If the Conservatives are going to take a third off health spending, heaven help the law and order, transport and education services.

Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the health team for all their hard work and leadership in dealing with the legacy of underfunding from the Tory years. In Staffordshire, we have already shown that, with modernisation, we can improve ambulance services. With the extra 6 per cent., we can deal with the existing underfunding.
My constituents are right behind my right hon. Friend in wanting something to be done about long-term care beds and community care for the elderly. Will he

personally take an interest in the Edwards report and ensure that there is a pilot project in north Staffordshire to address funding in long-stay beds and social services with the new pooled budgets?

The Prime Minister: On the point about long-stay beds and community care, the additional money that we have announced today should help in part.
As for what has happened already in the health service, it is important to recognise that the position in the health service varies in different parts of the country; however, by the end of this year, for example, all the accident and emergency departments that need modernising will have been modernised, and that will make a significant difference. Therefore, I think that the money is already slowly beginning to have an effect, but obviously the additional funds cannot come in over a period of years.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: First, everyone would agree that improvements in the use of social services are desirable, but is the Prime Minister comfortable with the proposition that, inevitably, under his plans social services will revert to the kind of medical model that was deserted nearly 50 years ago? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman comfortable with the emasculation of the local authorities, which is happening so fast under his Government?

The Prime Minister: That is a new tune from the Conservative party. I do not accept the proposition on the social services and medical model, but certainly, judging by the work that I saw and the people to whom I spoke in the health service, one of the main problems is the lack of proper co-ordination between social services and local hospitals and primary care groups. As a result, very often large numbers of people—particularly elderly people—end up in the wrong place in the system. Having a pooled budget enables those bodies to look at these things together, and obviously it is then up to them to decide whether they want to go for a local care trust, which would mean a unified budget.
In some parts of the country people already have a pooled budget, and that has had a significantly better impact. Indeed, I think that in different parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, that has been a tradition over many years. The absence of proper co-ordination between the two parts of the service has caused distress to a great many patients over the past few years.

Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the pilots for testing the system of pre-booked appointments was actually at Basildon hospital in my constituency? Is he further aware that through the efforts of the staff at the hospital, who were pleased to change the way in which they worked, and who, through their effort and commitment, have really made the system succeed, patients all over the country have reaped the rewards of that? The response that I am getting is excellent. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those members of staff?

The Prime Minister: A former chief executive of the hospital is playing a leading role in that project. The importance of the booked appointments system and the fact that it is already in use in certain parts of the country


show again how things can be done. The importance of that system is that it literally ends the whole concept of waiting. In order to get there, of course, there must be a sufficiently low maximum waiting time—the system of booked appointments cannot work if waiting times are very extended. However, the system is working in certain parts of the country and the plan sets out a detailed list of ways in which it can be improved.

Mr. John Maples: One of the things that I believe bothers all our constituents is the length of time that they sometimes have to wait to get an out-patient appointment with a consultant. The Prime Minister announced that he wanted that maximum wait to be reduced to three months. That would be a welcome, although not desperately ambitious, target. Can he explain why it will take him until 2008 to achieve it?

The Prime Minister: Waiting times will start to come down a long time before that, and three months will be the maximum wait; the average will be far less. The explanation for which the hon. Gentleman asked is a perfectly simple one. For years, there have been insufficient staff and consultants in the health service. We have to expand the numbers, but that will take time. However, the other thing that we can do in the meantime is to change the system.
Consultants to whom I spoke over the past few months said that up to 40 per cent, of their time was spent unnecessarily seeing patients, because some of that work could be done by either GPs or nurses, or, in the case of back injuries and so on, patients could be seen by other qualified professionals. So, lots of changes in the system are necessary, but it will take time to get there. The changes will be seen almost immediately, but it will take some years to get the system fully sorted out.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This is a very welcome statement and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was absolutely right in everything that he said. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he gave on consultants and other NHS staff were related specifically to England? If that is the case, can he confirm that it means that in Wales there will be between 375 and 400 extra consultants, to bring the health service up to a standard of which the Welsh people can be very proud?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I should have pointed out that the Joint Ministerial Committee has met with people from the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom, and it is of course for them to decide how they make progress, but I understand that they will all be publishing, in the not-too-distant future, their own version of how this money can be used and what they can get for it.

Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Prime Minister aware that early this week, the chief executive of the Oxford Radcliffe said that he was ashamed of the severe bed crisis at the Radcliffe? Of course, the chief executive has not had the opportunity to put in early extra resources. Will the right hon. Gentleman

apologise for his Government's decision to opt for tax cuts in the first two years rather than investment in the health service?
Until that money, which is much welcomed, comes through, there will be a need to recruit nurses and doctors. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise not to pillage developing countries for their trained doctors and nurses?

The Prime Minister: First, we are putting in more beds. Secondly, the criticism of us in our first two years, especially from the Conservative party, has often been that we were too hard with people in clearing the financial deficit and so on, but we had to achieve a balance and I think that we got it right.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point—an important point—we do not intend to try to take doctors from developing countries where they are urgently needed, but we will, where necessary for short-term reasons, recruit doctors from developed countries.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I welcome the statement. In all plans, the devil is always in the detail. However, I think that, for the very first time, we have a Government who are committed to a holistic approach to health. Allied to other policies, that will make a fantastic difference to those people who are unable to afford health care of any other kind.
Can my right hon. Friend say how this will be dealt with in the devolved Administrations, and Scotland in particular, and will it be discussed in the Joint Ministerial Committee?

The Prime Minister: It will be discussed in the Joint Ministerial Committee. Obviously, it is for the devolved Administrations to decide how best to make progress. There will be changes; they will want to do it in their own way, but I think that they broadly accept the basic outlines of what we are doing.

Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister's statement raises the prospect of really large consortiums spanning health and social services. Where does he expect the management to come from for those? How will he maintain accountability for those services if social services then effectively become managed from the health side of that equation? Is he aware that when elderly people put themselves in residential care but run out of money to pay for it, they become the responsibility of the local authority, which is not funded for those people? That is a cause of bed blocking, and if the Prime Minister does not address it he will not tackle one of the big dislocations between health and social services.

The Prime Minister: It is for that reason that we are putting more money into social services as well. I agree that we need to deal with that problem.
In relation to the consortiums that will run health services locally, we have to develop a cadre of managers to do that, but the primary health care trusts that I have seen in action so far give us significant cause for optimism. They have far greater flexibility; they are able to span across primary care groups; they are able, for example, to have their own physiotherapists; they are able to make far better use of practice nurses; and they get economies of scale. That will mean that we have to


develop, over time—a specific centre is being established as part of the plan—a cadre of leaders, managers and executives who can do that. That gives us the best of maximum devolution without the difficulty of the old internal market system, namely, that there was too much competition between local bodies.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The announcement today that the national health service will be more patient focused should be warmly welcomed by everyone in the House and outside. My right hon. Friend has just made an announcement about the next five years' investment in the national health service. Will he confirm that that will be invested in the national health service and not elsewhere within health care in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is indeed an investment in the national health service.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of today's announcement, when that notable health care authority Brian Abel-Smith advised the Labour party that individual GP fundholding was a good initiative that should be made universal, why did the Government interpret and implement that advice by making fundholding collective rather than individual?

The Prime Minister: We received advice from many other people that it was not such a good idea. That brings me back to what was said earlier about patient choice. For doctors who were not fundholders, there was a huge restriction of choice. The benefit of an internal market was the devolution of power downwards, but the problem was the competition and the two-tier system that arose. Through primary care groups and trusts, we have tried to extend the notion of local devolution, but on a co-operative rather than a competitive basis.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend believe that public funds should be used only for the benefit of NHS patients? If so, is that view shared by the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges of Nursing, of Physicians, of Surgeons and of General Practitioners, the NHS Confederation and others?

The Prime Minister: It is, indeed, one of the principles that all the bodies to which my hon. Friend refers have signed up. It is an important principle. People are perfectly free to take out private medical insurance, but it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr. David Tredinnick: The Prime Minister talked about alternative funding, but said nothing about alternative and complementary medicine. Given that a quarter of the population have used some form of complementary medicine such as homeopathy, herbal medicine or channelled energy, what is he doing to make sure that such treatments are available in the NHS? Can he confirm that he and his immediate family have at some stage used some forms of complementary and alternative medicine?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to go into the latter point. On the former point, certain forms of complementary medicine are already available on the NHS. The plan does not specifically deal with the issue.

Ann Clwyd: I am the only Member who was a member of the royal commission on the NHS,

which was set up by a Labour Government, but unfortunately reported to a Tory Government. Its recommendations were ignored until this day. For those members who worked hard during those three years, it will certainly be a vindication of our efforts to find so many of our recommendations implemented in the plan.
My right hon. Friend was right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition, who left the health service in Wales in a total mess. In constituencies such as mine, we have a third-world health service as a result. I am certain that if Nye Bevan were alive, he would be standing up and cheering on this day.

The Prime Minister: There could be no better compliment than that.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I warmly welcome the principles behind this plan for England and I hope that we shall see similar principles reflected in a short time in Wales. May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister and his hon. Friends to early-day motion 885, which deplores the lack of treatment for eating disorders in some areas of England and all of Wales? About 60,000 people a year, especially young women, suffer from eating disorders at any one time. There is a lack of specialist treatment throughout England. It is a postcode lottery. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the plan will end discrimination in England so that we can look forward to a similar thing happening in Wales?

The Prime Minister: Child and adolescent mental health is dealt with in the plan, and that will obviously have an impact on the issue of eating disorders.

Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the new NHS plan. It is a brave and radical plan. The reason why the Opposition respond with talk of leaks is that they were practised in that in government whereas they were not practised in understanding the NHS.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that primary care groups would move into primary care trusts. If a primary care group feels that it is best for patients that the PCG remains a group, will it be allowed to do so? He also talked about the importance of breaking down demarcations in the health service. Does the plan address the need to break down demarcations between health and social services so that all the people in the teams can meet people's needs as quickly and efficiently as possible, and so that we avoid the farce that many of our constituents face of being assessed once, twice or three times to obtain the basic care that they know they need?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, we want primary care groups over time to become trusts, as I think that many of them will want to do. I have detected in the groups to which I have spoken in the past few months an increasing enthusiasm for the idea of PCTs. They have seen in neighbouring areas that trusts have worked well, but obviously we have to work in consultation with the doctors.
As for budgets for social services, the important thing is that many of the matters to which my hon. Friend rightly refers and which greatly inconvenience people will disappear as a result of the new measures that we have


announced, the pooled budgets that are available and, in time, if that is what people want, the creation of local care trusts.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members will be disappointed not to be called, but this is a matter to which we shall return, and we must move on to the main business.

Points of Order

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All hon. Members have received a letter this morning which sought to be helpful with regard to the election of a new Speaker on 23 October. The letter was helpful as far as it went. May I make a final plea that you, your colleagues and Madam Speaker to think again about whether the House may not, even at this late hour, be given guidance on the sequence of events and the basis on which that sequence will be decided?
I ask that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will appreciate, as will all right hon. and hon. Members, that a knowledge by the electorate—namely, the Members of this House—of the sequence in which votes are likely to be held could have a crucial bearing not only on the candidatures but on Members' dispositions during the voting. If we do not have that knowledge, there is a great risk that the House will do itself a disservice by voting blindly without knowing the basis on which the sequence of events will be determined. May I make a plea that now, or certainly before 23 October, Members are given a great deal more information than they have been given today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I can add nothing to what has already been said in the statement, but I am sure that the authorities of the House have heard what he had to say.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The scenes that we saw when the Prime Minister was not answering questions on his statement were a disgrace to the House. Is it in order for a Minister to come to the House, have the privilege of making a statement and fail to answer the questions put to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he is entitled to his opinion.

Mr. Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me? Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to rely on items retrieved from rubbish bins in order to have anything to say from the Dispatch Box? Does it not degrade the House that Opposition Members have to rely on such tactics in order to have anything to say? Does it not confirm something that Labour Members have known for some time—that Conservative Members talk rubbish and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to stop the hon. Gentleman. He is not raising a point of order.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were all heartened by Madam Speaker's statement about the historic rights of the House to cross-examine the Executive. Yet we had the spectacle today of the Prime Minister coming to the House to make an important statement and being cross-examined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) with specific questions,


which the Prime Minister did not have the courtesy to answer. How are we to enforce our rights if the Prime Minister will not answer our questions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is expressing an opinion. Those matters are nothing to do with the Chair.

Football Disorder Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 17th July be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in
their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.

(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provision of this Order.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments and on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

(2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

I will move this guillotine motion briefly, as I am sure that the House will want to debate the substance of the Lords amendments more than the guillotine motion. It will ensure that we get the legislation that the Government need and that the community wants. It will contribute to the orderly conduct of business and it was set out in the original guillotine motion that the House passed. Incidentally, the Opposition amendment to that motion, which was tabled last week, did not seek to amend this aspect of the guillotine in any respect.

From the outset, we have made it clear that we shall address from the beginning of the new season—

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of concern that, apart from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary

and the Whip, there is only one Labour Member in the Chamber. That is an extraordinary state of affairs when a guillotine motion is being introduced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman is here, the Minister is here and I am here. That is all we need to get on with the business.

Mr. Clarke: I could not express it as well as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The guillotine motion that we are debating was envisaged, set out and agreed in the motion introduced last week. The amendment tabled by the Opposition did not seek to remove this aspect of the procedure.
The Government are convinced that the approach that we have set out in the Bill has to be clear and must be understood widely from the beginning of the next football season. We are determined to have the Bill agreed by the end of this month, so that it will have full effect from that date.
The Bill has been debated substantially and it has been improved through discussion. It may help hon. Members to learn that the Government intend to recommend that the House accepts all the amendments passed in the other place. We have sought to move by consensus and to seek agreement. We acknowledge that important suggestions and amendments have been made by both sides of the House. For those reasons, I hope that the guillotine motion will be agreed and that we can move as rapidly as possible on to substantive debate on the issues covered by the Lords amendments.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: This guillotine motion is silly and it is unnecessary. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have co-operated with the Government in making sure that the Bill makes due progress. Indeed, in the debate on the procedural motion in another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that the Opposition in the House of Commons
gave us an assurance, and delivered on the promise, that we would have their support.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 294.]
During the debate in Committee, Lord Bassam said:
There has been support across the parties, more particularly from the official Opposition, to bring the legislation forward.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 270.]
On Third Reading, he said:
I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his constructive approach.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 480.]
Even Lord Bassam feels that the procedure used is outrageous. He said:
I, too, am less than happy with the circumstances in which we have to deliberate on the legislation. I do not think that anybody can be happy. No one wants to be here at ten past five in the morning talking about complex matters like these.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 270.]
Nobody is happy with the procedure—except, possibly, Ministers. They have received the fullest possible cross-party support, but that support did not envisage them rushing the Bill through without due debate. We have had due debate on some, but not all, the matters of considerable concern to which the Bill gives rise. The Minister now says that he accepts all the amendments


made in another place, so why on earth is it necessary to have a guillotine if it is not yet another example of the Government's absolute compulsion to be control freaks at every stage of the way?
The motion is not necessary. Frankly, it is an insult given all the co-operation that the Minister has had. The Government have shown that they are not taking the Bill as seriously they would have done if they had allowed adequate time for debate and had given it a sensible passage through the House. Instead, the process has been characterised by one guillotine motion after another, all of which have been unnecessary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I share completely the view that we should not have this guillotine motion. The Bill was introduced late in the Session entirely at the Government's instigation—it could have been introduced at any time after the Queen's Speech or been scheduled in the Queen's Speech—and this motion is the latest in their attempt to bounce the Bill through all its stages. It is the last unhappy event in a series of unhappy events about a fundamentally worrying Bill.
I wish to consider the procedure that has been used. The Bill received its Second Reading the week before last and it came back before the House on the next but one working day. We went through all the remaining stages under a guillotine without any separation between the Committee and Report stages or between Report and Third Reading. As colleagues pointed out to the House, we were required to anticipate what we might want to debate after the Committee stage before the end of the Committee stage. There was just a matter of moments before the debate on Report began when other amendments could be considered. We discussed Report and Third Reading under a guillotine motion and that debate ended at 2.56 am on Tuesday last week.
There was just one working day before the Bill went to the Lords on Thursday last week. On Second Reading, the Lords expressed their unhappiness. However, they do not traditionally vote on Second Readings, so the Bill was not opposed at that stage. The Bill returned to the Lords on the first available working day—on Monday this week. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suggested, the Lords Committee sat until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning to deal with the amendments. I pay tribute to Lord McNally and my other Liberal Democrat colleagues, and to the colleagues of the right hon. Lady. They carried out assiduously until the early hours of the morning what Madam Speaker reminded us we are all here to do—holding the Government to account. Incidentally, if Parliament decided that it did not want to sit at anti-social hours, we would never be able to introduce such Bills. It is not possible to scrutinise them other than in the early hours, because no other time is available.
The Government decided that they wanted the Bill's remaining stages—Report and Third Reading—to take place in the Lords on Tuesday. In their wisdom, the Lords said, "No thank you. Up with this we will not put!" and rightly defeated the Government's proposal to carry straight on with the debate. That gave the Lords at least a day in which to consider the matter. It allowed them 18 hours—instead of the Government's anticipated nine—to read the relevant Hansard, which was not available until Wednesday, and to table amendments.
The Lords held the Report and Third Reading debates yesterday, and the debate on Third Reading ended early yesterday evening. The Bill, with the amendments made by the Lords, was published for the first time for us to see this morning, and the earliest that anyone could get hold of a copy was at 7 o'clock this morning when the Vote Office opened. We now have to debate four groups of Lords amendments, some of which raise controversial matters. Although they improve the Bill, they do not improve it nearly as much as some of us would have wished, and some of the improvements need to be explained and justified.
My colleagues and I considered what we wanted to do this morning and we tabled our amendments then—the only time available. Madam Speaker has selected my amendments, which I discussed with colleagues, in three of the four groups and we are likely to want to vote on at least one of those groups, if not more.
I have outlined the Bill's history, but we shall certainly vote against the guillotine motion for two other reasons. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald rightly suggested, this is a Government Bill which was introduced at their instigation. It returns to us on what is scheduled to be the last but one sitting day, with two relatively uncontroversial matters behind it on the Order Paper, and tomorrow we shall debate a completely uncontroversial item of business. There is absolutely no reason why we should not deal with the Bill in our own time. We have plenty of time; the House does not have to rise at a particular time today, which is a working day, and we are able to sit in the evening. We could deal properly with the four groups of Lords amendments and the amendments in my name.
It is unlikely that the Government will be defeated, given their majority, but if they are, the Lords will have the opportunity to do their work again. There is no reason for the guillotine. It comes down to the sad admission—I do not blame the Minister of State for this—that the Government have become obsessed with limiting debate. They want to ensure that their legislation is passed, but they do not want it to be debated. In the other place, thank goodness, there is no power to guillotine proceedings. The Government tried to pull a fast one by attempting to concertina the times between the different stages, but they failed in that.
I was amused to hear that the Government almost failed again in the middle of Monday night when a Conservative Member of the Lords insisted on a vote on his amendment, because the Lords had generally assumed that they were not going to vote on the Committee stage, and almost all the Government had gone home. That was a good amendment, and my noble Friends who were around in the early hours of the morning voted for it.
We should vote against the motion because it is not necessary and because the Government have to be told that Parliament will not just give in to an Executive which keep on piling guillotine motions on to the House. The Government have remaining legislation that they have not, for some reason, brought back from the other place, but have kept in the sidings. That legislation went to the Lords weeks or months ago. I refer to the Freedom of Information Bill, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and sex equality legislation. None of those have been dealt with. I give the Government warning that if, when we


return from the recess, they try to argue that they need a guillotine on those measures, we will oppose each and every motion.
The Home Office is entitled to bring legislation to the Cabinet Committee; the Cabinet Committee is entitled to bring legislation to the Government, and the Government are entitled to introduce it to the House, but they are not entitled, without opposition and strong argument, to disfranchise Members by preventing them from taking part in reasonable debates on important issues. I hope that they will learn that they do themselves no credit by seeming to curb debate. The Prime Minister has a new desire to be tough, but limiting debate is not a tough measure that does him credit. We have accepted that there is a case for amending the law before the summer holidays, but there is no case for a guillotine to limit debate on the motion and Lords amendments to a total of two hours.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here for his opening speech, but apparently it was very brief. It was so brief that by the time I had crossed the road by Big Ben and arrived here, it was over. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I read his speech in Hansard on another occasion.
I am not sure whether the House is entirely focused on the Bill, judging by the acres of empty green Benches around and opposite me.

Ms Claire Ward: It is quality, not quantity.

Mr. Corbyn: Well, there is still not much of it.
I am genuinely sorry that the Government have introduced a timetable motion to try to get the Bill through the House this afternoon because I had assumed that we could have a thorough debate about the Lords amendments tomorrow. Discussing why the Government want to rush the Bill through the House would be an ideal way to spend the last Friday before the recess. I am slightly nervous of guillotine motions at the best of times. They underline the problem of complacency in British parliamentary democracy in that the Executive, for good or for ill, effectively controls what Parliament does because it controls the timetable. In a more mature democracy, which we will one day reach, Parliament may be more independent of the Executive, and may be able to decide on its programme and timetable.
The Bill is born out of appalling events in Brussels and Charleroi during the European cup tournament. Nobody condones what went on there, but the criminal law that applies in Belgium, France, Germany and this country can deal with such disorder. It is important that we understand and accept the principle of the separation of police powers from those of the court. The general thrust of the Bill is to give an excessive power to the police to prevent people from travelling on the assumption that they may cause trouble in future. That assumption is based on their past behaviour, if there is knowledge of that behaviour. That sets a dangerous precedent.
The Bill is being rushed through because the Home Office believes that legislation automatically solves a problem. I am not convinced that the Bill will make a

hap'orth of difference to what happens at the England versus France game at the beginning of September. There is no need for the legislation because there is criminal law to deal with these matters. Football violence has been dealt with in previous legislation.
Legislating in haste, which we have done several times in this and previous Parliaments, means either that the legislation is simply never used or that it is challenged in the courts in this country or, ultimately, in the European Court of Human Rights, and we end up having to amend it. I realise that the Minister has invested a great deal of time and energy in the Bill, but we should ask whether it is necessary, whether it creates a dangerous legal precedent and whether we would be better off abandoning the whole thing, rather than trying to pass it this afternoon in less than two hours.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded me that we finished last Monday night at 2.56 am. I went home on my bicycle and saw a great deal of anti-social behaviour on Charing Cross road. I had no idea that there were so many people out on Charing Cross road at that time. There is criminal law to deal with those who behave anti-socially, or not, as the case may be, but the police have no powers to deport people or stop them travelling just because of their absurd behaviour; they would have to go through a legal process.
I am concerned that the Bill will set a precedent that could be applied in other cases. What if the measures were to apply to other sports, such as golf or cricket, for which people choose to travel? What if they applied to people going to France for a demonstration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the timetable motion, because that is what we are debating.

Mr. Corbyn: I conclude by saying that if we legislate in haste, by rushing the Bill through today, we will set a precedent that could easily affect other walks of life, thus damaging our civil liberties. The Bill should be dropped.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said. I find it slightly disconcerting that he and I, who stand at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, should agree so often on matters of civil liberties.
I am against the timetable motion, and I will vote against it. It is unnecessary and wrong in principle. The hon. Gentleman said that one reason why the House is not as respected as we would wish is that the Government control the proceedings. He referred to their control of the timetable. The hon. Gentleman is right, but the point goes further because the Government also control the votes through their Whips Office, and we are certain of the outcome of any discussion in this place. It is therefore essential that we should have full discussion because although we cannot determine the outcome, we can certainly set out the arguments, which may affect the argument outside the House. It is therefore wrong in principle that the Government should not only control the votes, but curtail the discussion.
That takes me to a point that I made earlier this week. This is the fifth timetable motion that we have had in four weeks. The essence of a democracy is that the discussion


in Parliament signifies consent to legislation going through, and consent must mean, if it means anything, informed consent. We can have informed consent only if the House hears the arguments on all sides of the debate. Given that the effect of timetable motions is that whole groups of amendments are never discussed or voted on, how can we have informed consent? People will increasingly realise that this House is simply driving through legislation that has never been discussed or voted on. That undermines the legitimacy of what we are about.
The Minister of State argued that we should get through this timetable motion rapidly so that we can get on to the substantive motion. That is an attractive notion so far as it goes, but it is a form of blackmail.

Mr. Corbyn: Aside from the concern about timetables, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the problems with this timetable motion and one or two others that we have had is that, because they do not timetable by groups of amendments, many amendments are automatically not mentioned in debate and therefore, legally, they cannot be mentioned in the courts in the future because Ministers' intentions on the subject are not known?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right. We saw this happen last Tuesday, when important amendments were not just not voted on, but were never discussed. That means that the process of informed consent does not take place. If legislation that passes out of this House has not been the subject of rational or informed discussion, what legitimacy does the legislation have? It brings the process of law making into contempt.

Mr. Roger Gale: To some extent, my right hon. and learned Friend missed the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which was about legal challenges. If something is referred to, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, it can be raised as an argument in the courts. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that better than I do. If an issue is not mentioned, it cannot be referred to.

Mr. Hogg: That is not absolutely correct, although I know what my hon. Friend is getting at. Certainly, statements by a Minister can be taken into account when interpreting the meaning of statute, but my views or those of my hon. Friend would not have that desirable effect. My hon. Friend is therefore only partially right.
As I was saying, the Minister of State said that we should hurry through the timetable motion so that we can get on to the substantive debate. Although that is an attractive notion, it is wrong. It is a form of blackmail, because those of us who think that the timetable is wrong in principle and unnecessary in this case owe the House a duty to say so. Otherwise, the public will not know about the abuses going on and our silence will be treated as acquiescence in the process. I think that what is going on is wholly wrong.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said: there is no need for us to hurry today. We know, because we have been told—I welcome this fact—that the Government will accept the Lords amendments. That makes a rotten Bill slightly less bad. However, we should not be discussing

Lords amendments today because this Bill came out of the other place only yesterday and one had to be remarkably nimble-footed to table any amendments by today. We have ample time to consider the Bill tomorrow—or, indeed, next week, if the House would so order its business. We are being pushed in an unnecessary way to do something that we should not do. Those of us who value parliamentary government and who agreed with Madam Speaker when she stressed the need for proper scrutiny owe it to the House to say that enough is enough. I, for one, will seek to divide the House on this motion, and I hope that others will do the same.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) makes a point that all of us have argued from time to time, depending on which side of the House we have been sitting on and what view we have taken of a particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Corbyn: Some of us have made that argument on both sides.

Mr. Banks: I always defer to my hon. Friend, who is a man of great principle. I cannot lay claim to such a reputation, and neither can the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, whom I have heard and seen strongly supporting guillotine motions when he occupied a Front-Bench position as a Minister in the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, he and I have been on both sides of the argument, so no one can lay claim to being totally consistent throughout their parliamentary life.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government were controlling both the timetabling of legislation and the votes through the Whips. Has anything changed? Did that arise only in 1997? It clearly did not, so he is just telling us something that is self-evident. There are times when all of us, whether our party is in government or not, have felt the need to speak out, either in this Chamber or outside, because we do not agree with something that our Government have been doing. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has far more experience in that area than I have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this guillotine motion prevents informed discussion and therefore challenges the legitimacy of the Bill, but that does not apply in this case. We have already discussed this issue at length. As I said on Second Reading and at other stages of the Bill, there is a continuum here. Governments of both persuasions have been trying to solve the problem of football hooliganism for many years and, so far, we have failed. This Bill is the latest attempt.

Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is missing the whole point of this debate. Whatever discussions may have gone on prior to this, inside or outside the House, or even in another place, this is supposed to be an opportunity for Members of the House of Commons to discuss the Lords amendments. It simply is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that, because we have had all sorts of prior


discussions, we need not bother now. This timetable motion denies us the opportunity properly to consider what the other place has sent us.

Mr. Banks: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman because it depends on what he means by proper discussion. Once we have moved off this guillotine motion, which naturally eats into the time available for discussion of the substantive issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then.] I know that I do not need to make this speech, but I am damned if I will sit down yet.
We have an opportunity to discuss the Lords amendments, albeit not as much time as Opposition Members would like. Let me put a question to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who I trust will answer it honestly. If we were to discuss this Bill from now until Domesday, would he agree with it? That is the whole point: he would not agree with it. It is a matter of principle.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is throwing down a challenge. The truthful answer is that I would not agree with this Bill even if we discussed it until Domesday, but I will not filibuster it out. That is the key point.

Mr. Banks: I accept that. One could therefore say, as with many decisions made in this House, that we do not have to sit here listening to our colleagues on either side of the House opining at great length. Most of us have made up our minds about most matters beforehand. It would be nice to think that this was genuinely a debating Chamber, but it is not; it is a decision-making Chamber with an element of debate attached to it. We tend to know our own minds. If we did not, we could be challenged on what we were doing here in the first place.
That does not mean that we cannot improve legislation by discussion, amendments and votes, which are all part of the procedure, but we should not make too much of the idea that matters must be discussed endlessly if we are to make better legislation.

Mr. Corbyn: May I help my old friend? Mr. Banks: Dear old friend.

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, dear old friend. My hon. Friend was once my employer. Does he agree that the lack of a detailed timetable motion means that the Government can introduce important amendments in the latter stages of a Bill—or someone else can introduce them and they can be accepted by the Government—without discussion or a ministerial reply? Therefore, when the courts test a particular section of the legislation, they have no ministerial statement in Hansard to which to refer. That is an important part of the legal process of setting precedents.

Mr. Banks: I understand what my hon. Friend says in that Ministers could give a better steer. I have always been led to believe that the courts do not take into account in any great detail statements made during the passage of legislation. They interpret the wording of Acts; they do not consider the sentiment behind them. That is the point of the process.

Mr. Charles Clarke: To help my hon. Friend in his powerful case, I confirm that the Government do not

intend to table any amendment to the Bill, as he suggests, and we do not propose to accept the other amendments that have been tabled, except those selected by Madam Speaker. We shall simply argue that the Lords amendments should be accepted. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may arise in other cases, but not in this one.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend the Minister is an honest man, and we can have total confidence in the Bill, but I cannot say that for all the legislation that the Government have proposed. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I want to mention that my very good, old and hon. Friend the hon. Member for Islington, North asked how we should gauge people's opinions. He answered his own question—we need only look about ourselves. If the Bill is so controversial, why are not more hon. Members here? Attendance must, at times, be used as an indicator of hon. Members' concern.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman outright. When Members read that such limited time would be allowed under the guillotine motion, they realised first, that there was no point in attending because they could not all speak, and secondly, that the Government are trampling all over the House as usual. They are two effective deterrents to hon. Members attending.

Mr. Banks: What the hell are we doing here then? We were not deterred by the motion, and we are not anoraks.

Mr. Corbyn: We are all anoraks.

Mr. Banks: I speak for myself because my hon. Friend is clearly an anorak. He said that we should come here tomorrow; it is a perfectly good day for us to do so. I take the point, but he is a notorious non-holiday taker. He is the man who, when pushed to have a day off, took his partner to Highgate cemetery to study the grave of Karl Marx. That is why I love the guy, but he is a notorious non-relaxation Member, who would have us all working like Stakhanovites 24 hours a day. Decent and hard working as he is, we should not use him as our bell-wether for what is good or bad attendance.
We have gone over such matters enough. The timetable motion is perfectly adequate to allow us to deal with the amendments and to continue to discuss the Bill, which I still maintain is necessary. It is the latest measure in a line of legislation that Governments have introduced to try to curb the cancer of football hooliganism. As I have said, I am not certain that the Bill will work, but I am prepared to have a go and to see whether it does. We have plenty of ways in which to keep it under review. If the Bill does not work, or if it works in a way in which we do not believe it should, it is up to us to change it. That is our right, and we are exercising our rights this afternoon.

Mr. Roger Gale: I, too, apologise for the fact that I missed the Minister's opening comments, but, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, they were remarkably brief and I missed them even in the time that it took to cross the road.
This is a curious Bill; these are curious circumstances; and this curious guillotine motion brings together the opinions of the hon. Members for Islington, North


(Mr. Corbyn) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and myself. We do not normally agree on many issues, but we clearly agree on this one. The House, especially those on the Front Benches, should pay attention, if only for the future, to the fact that there is no need to railroad through such legislation. It is interesting that the hon. Members in the Chamber today broadly reflect those who were present in the small hours of another morning not so long ago. Clearly, several hon. Members on both sides of the House share the view that this is an appallingly bad Bill. It is badly drafted and it is likely to be badly implemented, and anything that we can do to help their lordships to improve it must be for the good.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the blackmail element of the motion. The fact of the matter is that every moment that I speak now will truncate debates on the amendments that we wish to discuss. That must be wrong. Although it seems a long time ago, it was only yesterday that Madam Speaker said in her valedictory speech that the job of the House
is to hold the Executive to account—[Official Report, 26 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1114.]
to challenge bad legislation at any and every opportunity and, if necessary, to do so in depth.
As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, as a result of the timetable motion, we are faced with the prospect that, after two hours, all the provisions will be passed whether or not we have debated them. We cannot even debate the first and second groups of amendments for three quarters of an hour each. Groups of amendments will go through, legally, on the nod. That cannot be right.
I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who helped me out of my confusion. It is not correct, as I and the hon. Member for Islington, North said, to suggest that if something is not said on the Floor of the House, it cannot be quoted in court. However, if the groups of amendments are not debated, the Minister will not be given the opportunity to reply and therefore his reply cannot be quoted in court.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in each case, my colleague Lord Bassam—the Minister in the other place—clearly stated the Government's position on the amendments?

Mr. Gale: I accept that the Minister has stated several times that the Government agree with the Lords amendments, but that is not the case with other amendments, which will almost certainly not be debated. This is not the first time that that point of principle has arisen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned four occasions when guillotine motions have been introduced recently. Whole tranches of legislation are going through on the nod, with no ministerial response. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, who would welcome the chance to respond to all such debates.
In earlier incarnations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you spent many hours chairing Committees. In the past three years, I have been privileged to spend several hundred hours chairing Committees, but I have never been faced with a guillotine motion. By and large, hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need to be broadly

reasonable and they recognise that the Government have a right, with a democratic majority, to pass their legislation. However, they also recognise the right and duty, to which Madam Speaker referred yesterday, to challenge legislation if we believe it to be bad.
Nothing that has happened today or in another place alters the fact that this is a bad Bill, which has been introduced in haste and which we shall repent at leisure. The only fundamental difference between the Bill and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 is that, sadly, the Act did not contain the sunset clause that the Minister has now said the Government intend to accept. The Bill is about tokenism; it is a bad Bill.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman and myself are at one on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, but it ended up with dogs being killed, and the magistrates had no discretion whatever. Nothing in the Bill will terminate the lives of football hooligans. I know that that was not the comparison that he was making, but that Act was a bit terminal, was not it?

Mr. Gale: I have to concede that nothing in the Bill terminates the lives of football hooligans, but the arguments against the Bill are not about the effect that it may or may not have on football hooligans—it probably will not have an effect on them—but about the effect that it may or may not have on all sorts of people who are innocently travelling and who have nothing to do with football. That has been the prime argument against the Bill, but I do not want to go too far down that road because you would rightly declare me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fundamental fact is that the Bill has been introduced in a hurry to deal with a particular football match. It must be the first time in history that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have devoted—have wasted—so much time on one aspect, on one event, on one date. By October, when the human rights legislation that the House of Commons and the other House have passed comes into force, almost certainly the Bill will be out of court anyway, so we are talking about something that is transitory.
The best that can be said is that the Bill and the Government's acceptance of the Lords sunset clause have truncated the misery and the bad legislation—the duration of a bad Bill. The worst that can be said—it really is the worst—is that the Government are again using a guillotine to curtail debate on groups of clauses that should have the opportunity—there is no reason why they should not have the opportunity—to be properly debated, so that the Minister can put clearly on the record and, therefore, if necessary, into law, the Government's view.

Mr. Eric Forth: We have had a rather frightening insight from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) into new Labour's genuine attitude to the House of Commons and to Parliament. He said, with typical candour and great honesty, that he did not regard debate as of any import or substance, that all


votes should be whipped, that the Government must have their way, and what on earth were we all doing here anyway.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Forth: I only slightly paraphrase but I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Banks: If that is a slight paraphrase of what I said, all I can say is that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not start telling untruths about me. I did not say that. I said just that this was not a debating Chamber in quite that sense. Debate can alter things, but the fact is that most hon. Members come in here with their minds made up, and none more so than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forth: What I think that the hon. Gentleman said—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is pointing out from a sedentary position—is that the Whips make up the hon. Gentleman's mind for him. That is, in effect, what he said. Let us not fall out over it. I and the hon. Gentleman will read Hansard assiduously tomorrow—as we do—probably on the beach, and we will see what was actually said.
This is another rare event. I put on the record that, on this occasion, I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said and almost everything—no, I think everything—that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said. They reflected a widespread unease, which we are now seeing all too frequently in the House, about the use of the guillotine by the Government.
I have never accepted the need for the Bill. I have never accepted the justification that, because of a damned football match, of all things, we are going to legislate and to change the law of the land. That must be the ultimate absurdity. Nor have I accepted the responsibility that the Government say we should accept for the conduct of our citizens abroad. It is for the Belgian authorities to apply their laws properly to people in their country.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Given the right hon. Gentleman's absolute clarity about his opposition to the Bill, about which he has been clear all the way through, are there any circumstances in which, without a guillotine, he would consider filibustering for ever to stop the Bill becoming law?

Mr. Forth: The Minister, although he has not been in the House very long, should know that what he has said is impossible. Apart from the fact that you would not allow me to do something called filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we all know that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have never known the right hon. Gentleman to get involved in any filibustering.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Not only that, but the Minister knows that, in the case of a Government Bill, even without a guillotine, closure motions are possible from time to time and have been

used, so what he said is impossible. Even if I wanted to stop the Bill getting on to the statute book, as I would like to, it is not within my power to do so, so that is not even to be considered.
We are told that we have at the most two hours—and now, in effect, only one hour—to consider four groups of important amendments; 22 amendments of substance from another place. It is not good enough to suggest that the Government accept the amendments. That is a matter for the Government. I am not a member of the Government; I am an Opposition Back Bencher. To suggest that we do not need much time because the Government have accepted their lordships' amendments does not wash with me.
Potentially, 500 Members of the House of Commons may wish to discuss the matter—up to 500 of them. [Interruption.] Potentially, I said, before Labour Members get too excited. As I said earlier, I strongly suspect that most responsible hon. Members with an interest in the matter studied the Order Paper this morning, saw to their horror that the Government were yet again curtailing debate unnecessarily on the matter and drew the conclusion that it was most unlikely that 500 responsible, interested Members of Parliament would be able to make a meaningful contribution on four groups and 22 amendments in one hour flat. I suspect that, for that reason, they decided not to turn up on this occasion—until they come in to vote against the guillotine.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I add one other, I hope linked, point. By definition, the amendments that the rest of us have tabled were not able to be tabled—let alone published and circulated—until about the time that we began the debate, so, to know what was on the agenda, to decide whether they thought that it was important and to come here was probably for many hon. Members either technically or actually impossible.

Mr. Forth: I agree. I hope that many people both inside the House and outside will read the hon. Gentleman's speech. He analysed for our benefit the absurdity of the timetable of the Bill hitherto, which has made proper connection between Second Reading, Committee, the Report stage, the House of Lords and here effectively impossible, thus undermining the process to which we are all supposed to be so committed and attached—parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary law-making. On this occasion, we have been able to do none of that.
Although we are told that their lordships have deliberated and that the Government, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to accept the amendments, that is still not good enough. The House of Commons has not had an opportunity properly to consider the matter and to determine whether a law that affects people's rights fundamentally should be changed. Nor will we be given any opportunity properly to have Divisions in the House—for the House to vote properly on the four groups, on the 22 amendments or, indeed, on the hon. Gentleman's amendments and those in the name of his hon. Friends.
Therefore, all in all, the entire episode has been shabby and disgraceful. I do not accept the approach that the Government have taken. I do not accept that we should legislate to deal with football, football matches, one particular football match or, indeed, football matches in other countries. None of that is legitimate, so this is a blot on our parliamentary history.


However, my real worry is that the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham and the attitude of the Minister, courteous as ever though he has been, reveal the Government's general approach. They are prepared more and more to resort to such a tactic to ram through an inordinate amount of legislation, usually rather badly drafted, invariably misdirected and ultimately harmful both to the country and to the individual citizenry.
I hope that I have an opportunity to vote against the guillotine. Unless I hear a much more powerful argument, I am minded to vote against the Bill itself if I have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to detain the House, but can you please clarify what the situation is on amendments? As I understand it, there are the printed amendments from the Lords, some manuscript or urgently tabled amendments from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—and, I understand, no one else—and a printed list of selected amendments. I am unclear about what time the printed list of selected amendments was placed and whether any of the hon. Gentleman's amendments have or will be selected by the Chair for debate after the timetable motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A revised list has been circulated and it is also available. I will make a statement regarding manuscript amendments.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Let me make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not raising a point of order. I believe that I still have time to speak on the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman took me by surprise. He has only just entered the Chamber, but he is certainly entitled to speak.

Mr. Shepherd: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate what you have said. I want to make just one small point.
Until the early 1980s, the tradition of the House—I regret the change in that tradition—was that debates on Lords amendments were not guillotined. Parliament is composed of two Houses, and it is necessary to carry business in both those Houses. I recall the palpable sense of shock among those who were then Government Back Benchers when we started this practice. It is a profound discourtesy to an equal other Chamber.

Mr. Mike Hall: Rubbish.

Mr. Shepherd: The Government Whip may say it that it is rubbish, but it is not. The fact is that we require the passage of legislation in both Houses of Parliament, and it used to be considered appropriate—indeed, the only thing to do—to weigh amendments made by those who had taken time to try to change that legislation. In this guillotine motion, the House of Commons is manifestly rejecting that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I make a factual point? The hon. Gentleman may not know that, because of the

timetable in the House of Lords, it was impossible for amendments to be tabled by Opposition parties in time following Third Reading there. Both the hon. Gentleman's party and mine protested about that. As a consequence, we have fewer amendments than we would have had if proper procedures had obtained in the other place.

Mr. Shepherd: What the hon. Gentleman says emphasises the importance of the process of examining legislation.
That is the only point that I wanted to make, but I think it is important.

Mr. Hawkins: When my hon. Friend rightly suggested that ours was a bicameral legislature containing two Chambers of equal worth, there was a sedentary suggestion from the Labour Benches that the Chambers were not equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that constitutes a serious revelation about the attitude of the Labour party—which is precisely what concerned Madam Speaker in her wise words yesterday?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think I heard the intervention that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but such a suggestion would be misjudged. My concern, however, is deeper. I fear that there will come a time when the House of Lords will say, "There is no point in our considering legislation that has returned from the Commons if the Commons does not do us the courtesy of examining what we have deliberated and decided on."
I am merely saying that this puts our own proceedings at risk. It must be in the Government's interest to weigh that factor against others. I am aware of the crisis that forced the Government to table the original guillotine motion and, today, a supplemental allocation of time motion; but there will come a day when the House of Lords says, "This is not appropriate." We are in dire trouble when we have a legislative programme as weighty and lengthy as this.

Mr. Hughes: May I make one final point?
I hope the hon. Gentleman will support what will certainly be said by Members of the other place, including Lord Ackner. He was assured that the Government would consider amendments tabled by him, but the timetable prevented those amendments from being considered or, indeed, tabled. Because of the timetable imposed over the past two days, the Bill could not even come to the House of Commons having been amended in the way agreed by the Government.

Mr. Shepherd: As is so often the case in these matters, the hon. Gentleman is right. Our cry from the Conservative Benches is this: such action makes legislation ridiculous and absurd, and diminishes authority. The Government should therefore consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to extend the debate, but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has made an important point. If we had been able to consider Lords amendments tomorrow, say, we could have tabled our own amendments to those amendments, reflecting, for example, the intentions of Lord Ackner.

Mr. Shepherd: I apologise for arriving late. I assumed that the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend had already been established. I regret that, as it had not, I cannot comment.
That is all that I wished to say. I did not wish to delay the House for long.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 141.

Division No. 295]
[3.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cox, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Banks, Tony
Dawson, Hilton


Barnes, Harry
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Beard, Nigel
Dismore, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dobbin, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Drew, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Drown, Ms Julia


Benton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Best, Harold
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Betts, Clive
Edwards, Huw


Blackman, Liz
Efford, Clive


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fisher, Mark


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caton, Martin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirml S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vemon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hope, Phil


Coleman, lain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric





Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pope, Greg


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Ms Jenny
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rogers, Allan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Kidney, David
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sarwar, Mohammad


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Miss Geraldine


(Makerfield)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonnell, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Snape, Peter


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWalter, Tony
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (SheWeston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Meale, Alan
(Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moffatt, Laura
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Touhig, Don


Moran, Ms Margaret
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moriey, Elliot
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


(B'ham Yardley)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mountford, Kali
Tynan, Bill


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Ward, Ms Claire


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Watts, David


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Organ, Mrs Diana
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Osbome, Ms Sandra
(Swansea W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pearson, Ian
Wills, Michael


Perham, Ms Linda
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Wood, Mike






Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. David Clelland and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Key, Robert


Allan, Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Amess, David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lansley, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Ballard, Jackie
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
Livsey, Richard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Blunt, Crispin
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brake, Tom
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Madel, Sir David


Maples, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
May, Mrs Theresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burstow, Paul
Nicholls, Patrick


Butterfill, John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cash, William
Öpik, Lembit


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paterson, Owen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pickles, Eric


Cotter, Brian
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flynn, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Salmond, Alex


Fox, Dr Liam
Sanders, Adrian


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gidley, Sandra
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hancock, Mike
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyler, Paul


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Webb, Steve


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jenkin, Bernard
Welsh, Andrew


Johnson Smith,
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitbngdale, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann





Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. John Randall and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 17th July be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.


Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provision of this Order.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments and on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

(2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Orders of the Day — Football (Disorder) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The House should know that a number of manuscript amendments have been tabled to the Lords amendments to the Football (Disorder) Bill. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If the House agrees to either of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
We come to Lords amendment No. 1.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Minister speaks to Lords amendment No. 1, could he explain what the Government propose to do about the matter that we discussed in the previous debate? The Government gave an undertaking that if Lord Ackner, the Cross-Bench peer, withdrew amendments that he had tabled, they would ensure that the issues would be addressed before the Bill completed its passage. The issues were not addressed in the Lords because of the timetable, and today they do not seem to be the subject of Government amendments to the Lords amendments. It therefore seems that Ministers have not yet honoured the undertaking given in the other place by Lord Bassam.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. However, the Minister will undoubtedly have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will perhaps respond to them in the debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said, absolutely correctly, that the manuscript amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are available. All of those amendments are effectively amendments to amendments. However, have any of them been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have been grouped with other amendments for debate. They are listed on the new selection list.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the House and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) if I point out that there is a new selection list. The hon. Gentleman will find my amendments on that list.

Clause 2

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY NCIS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3A) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 18 to 21 and amendment in lieu thereof, and 22.

Mr. Clarke: It may be for the convenience of the House if I point out that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for inclusion in this group of amendments, and amendments tabled by him for inclusion in the third and fourth groups. We shall be able to consider those amendments when we reach those groups.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3 and 18 to 21 were made by the Government in the other place to give effect to trie recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Government accepted all the Committee's recommendations, and I commend them to the House, as I said earlier that I would.
Amendment No. 1 has the effect that regulations prescribing persons to whom the National Criminal Intelligence Service can disclose information for the purposes of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment gives effect to the first recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 give effect to the Select Committee's second recommendation, that amendments made under the Bill to orders subject to affirmative resolution should themselves be subject to that procedure.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 give effect to the Select Committee's third recommendation, that the power to extend the control period under the Bill—the period during which passports may be required to be surrendered and the summary powers in sections 21A and B may be exercised—should be limited. The amendments ensure that a control period can begin a maximum of 10 days before the beginning of a match or tournament, if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary for the purposes of enforcement of the Act.
Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment.
The amendment in lieu relates to amendments Nos. 18 to 21, and it might help the House if I explain our attitude to it before the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey speaks. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee saw no difficulty in principle with the power to extend the control period, but it recommended that it should not be open-ended. The Government have accepted that fully. The power can be used to extend the period to a maximum of 10 days before a match or tournament, and only on the ground that it will assist in enforcing the law. Any order is subject to the

negative resolution procedure. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable, and I urge the House to reject the amendment in lieu.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked me to comment on the exchanges in another place between my noble Friend Lord Bassam and Lord Ackner. I am studying the details of those exchanges, and I will comment later in the debate.
I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Let me make it clear, on behalf of the official Opposition, that although, as was said earlier on the guillotine motion, we have been very unhappy with the way in which matters have been handled procedurally—in what we would call indecent haste and with inappropriate guillotines—we are none the less grateful that the Government have made certain concessions, having recognised the quality of the arguments advanced by my noble Friend Lord Cope and others. I certainly accept what the Minister, and Ministers in another place, have said: that the Government have sought, where they felt it possible, to accommodate points made in both Houses by the official Opposition and by Liberal Democrats.
That should not in any way be taken as reducing our continuing concern about the way in which this matter has been handled and about the fact that, even this afternoon, there has been quite a lot of confusion. The point just made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) shows once again how the House can get into a muddle and even experienced Members of Parliament such as he can be confused by the rush in which manuscript amendments have had to be tabled. I am pleased that the amendment in lieu was at least selected, but the problem is that, because of the guillotine, some important matters may never be reached, so the Minister may not be able to say anything about them.
Given that we are dealing with a Bill that, quintessentially, may result in court proceedings, the rule in Pepper v. Hart that ministerial statements can be relied on in court is especially important. If important amendments are not debated, by definition the Minister will make no statement and no reference will be able to be made to the Government's view in interpreting what will be the result of this rushed legislation.
There are no amendments tabled by the official Opposition in this group. Because of the rush, we have sought to consider, at short notice, the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I hear what the Minister says about delegated powers and the amendment in lieu, relating to line 18 of the second schedule. There is certainly a continuing concern about the broad reach of the provisions, but I recognise that the Government have wisely taken on board a number of points made in debate by Lord Cope and others in another place.
The Government did well to accept those points, but they should recognise that the way in which they have proceeded is not a recipe for good legislation. We hope that they will learn lessons from the peculiar procedural


complications that they have imposed on the House, and we very much hope that they will never again put us in such a position.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Minister said, the amendment in lieu relates to Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.
I shall deal briefly with Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which improve the Bill by providing more parliamentary control in respect of policy changes and any additional measures that the Government may seek to introduce under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, and we support the amendments.
Let me pause for a second to say that all the Lords amendments improve the Bill. My hon. Friends here and in another place—and many other right hon. and hon. Members—share the view that the Bill is fundamentally bad. We continue to disagree with provisions in respect of banning orders and summary detention. Had we the opportunity, we would disagree with the Bill or remove those provisions. However, procedure prevents us from doing so.
Those sentiments were reflected in speeches in another place, such as those by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and by Lord Ackner, who is non-party political and a senior and respected lawyer. My noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury compared the Bill with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which we dealt with yesterday, saying:
It is a striking contrast with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, on which the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, laboured, as did my noble Friend Lord McNally and I, together with the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Lucas. That Bill came to this House in a tawdry and inadequate state and left it much improved. This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition, but from the Government Benches.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 475.]

Miss Ann Widdecombe: So there have been some.

Mr. Hughes: I was quoting Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is certainly our view that, of the major matters involved, the only significant concession has been in respect of the life of the Bill, which was originally five years. It was conceded in this House to four years and is now down to two years—the so-called sunset clause. My noble Friend Lord Phillips said that although it may be good that the sun sets on this Bill sooner rather than later, the sun should never have risen on this Bill. That encapsulates our view.
So what have we left to do? We have tried to table appropriate amendments in the time available. Our amendment, which would replace Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend the control period. Of course it is better to have a control period of 10 days rather than an unlimited one. However, my hon. Friends and I would rather that the Secretary of State did not have the power to extend the control period as everyone is concerned that the Bill already gives too much power to the authorities.

Mr. Corbyn: The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the control period. What will happen if

an emergency arises during the parliamentary recess? Can the Secretary of State simply do whatever he wishes—and we will have to scrutinise that long after the event—or is he denied the right to take action?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on another important reason why the Bill is nonsense. I understand that the control period can be extended only by the Secretary of State coming to Parliament and seeking an extension. Many powers in the Bill require affirmative resolutions of both Houses. I stand to be corrected, but if that is the case, it can happen only when the House is sitting. I find it unlikely that the House would be recalled for that sort of job.

Mr. Corbyn: Who knows?

Mr. Hughes: Nowadays who knows, but it is unlikely. Some of the urgent issues for this year relate to matches in August, September and October—before the House of Commons returns. Therefore, a power to take urgent action could not be applied if the House was not sitting. That also applies to Christmas and Easter holidays.
I hope that the House will agree that it would be better not to give Ministers the additional power. I realise that we will not be able to vote on my proposal until we have discussed the remaining groups of amendments, but hon. Members should bear in mind that we will seek to divide the House after the next three debates.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I want to deal with the point about Lord Ackner. I have studied the Hansard of the debate in another place, which started at 4.48 pm yesterday and can be found at columns 450–65. There was substantial controversy over the matter, and as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I was careful to read the entire debate.
I believe that no undertaking was given to Lord Ackner that the amendments that he wanted to table could be tabled for today. Indeed, at column 462, the Government Chief Whip made it clear that amendments along the lines of those proposed by Lord Ackner could not be tabled today because they were not variations of or consequential on amendments made in another place. I wanted to make those points to set out my position as clearly as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Like the Minister, I have read the Hansard of yesterday's debate in another place. Does he agree that the reason why there has been a problem is that there was no opportunity for peers such as Lord Ackner to table their amendments as they were working to a timetable that was then changed at short notice?

Mr. Clarke: As is set out clearly in the Hansard of the debate, there was clearly a misunderstanding on Report as to whether or not Lord Ackner could table amendments the following day for Third Reading. The full account of that is set out in the Lords Hansard of the debate yesterday afternoon. Apparently, Lord Bassam said that Lord Ackner could table the amendments "tomorrow" instead of "for tomorrow". That miswording was specifically addressed in yesterday's debate. It is elaborated in the Hansard of that debate, which is


available to all right hon. and hon. Members who would like to study it. I do not believe that a commitment of the type that the hon. Gentleman was referring to was given.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished his speech.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 40, leave out ("four years") and insert ("one year")

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment gave rise to the most discussion in another place. I will not hide from the House that the Government are disappointed by the amendment, which reflects the desire of another place to reduce significantly the proposed life span of what are widely known as measures 3 and 4. We were not against a sunset clause in principle and we were quite happy to discuss it, but we feel that the time periods that were agreed in another place are too short for good legislation.
When we proposed one and four-year sunset periods, we believed that the right amount of time had been allocated properly to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the measures in sections 14B, 21A and 2IB of the Football Spectators Act 1989. We were especially conscious that a five-year period would incorporate Euro 2004 in Portugal—a high-risk tournament comparable with Euro 2000—and that that would provide an excellent test for the Bill. That is why we opposed the amendment in another place and that is why we regret it now. However, we recognise that the concerns that were expressed in another place that led to the amendment were perfectly genuine and were not facetious in any way. Although we do not share those views, we think that in the interests of the consensual approach that we have tried to follow, we should accept the amendment and for that reason I commend it to the House.

Miss Widdecombe: While I am grateful to the Minister for not resisting the proposal that there should be a fairly stringent sunset clause, I am also slightly disappointed as we proposed an original renewal period of six months rather than the one year which has now come from another place. On the other hand, the final date by which the legislation falls, which is two years away, is exactly what we proposed.
Although I hear what the Minister says about the matches that the Bill will not cover, it will cover the whole of the qualifying period for the World cup and should therefore provide a sensible opportunity to assess its effectiveness.
4 pm
However, I feel strongly that, without the amendment, it would have been hard for Conservative Members to maintain our support for the Bill. We have always

supported the taking of immediate measures to deal with football hooligans, and the use of an accelerated timetable. When the Bill was published, part IV especially included provisions that we had never sought. They had never been proposed previously, and so had not been discussed. As a result, all subsequent discussion has been completely new, and the timetable has been extremely rushed.
We have made it clear throughout that we would not oppose the due process of the Bill's progress through the House, although it has not had much of that due process. However, the measure's flaws and dangers have become clearer with debate, and it has become increasingly necessary to provide that the Bill has a clause to ensure their short, sharp life.
At various stages of the debate on the Bill, hon. Members have drawn parallels with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. The hon. Member for Newham—

Mr. Tony Banks: My constituency is now called West Ham.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, I cannot keep up with these changes.

Mr. Banks: At least I have not changed my constituency.

Miss Widdecombe: Neither have I. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he had a specific opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. He and I share many interests when it comes to animal welfare. I was not happy either with the outcome of deliberations on that legislation, although at the time I was obliged to pretend that I was.
Therefore, I feel strongly that we must always ensure that legislation introduced at a fast pace can be reviewed. Such a review should take place at an early stage, not after a long period of possible injustices, failures and undesirable effects. In that way, hon. Members would be able to assess whether the legislation was better or worse than they believed it to be when it left the House, or exactly as they expected.
I welcome the amendment. It is close to what we asked for in the first place, and I am grateful to the Minister for accepting it. I hope that it will meet with no serious opposition from other hon. Members.

Mr. Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that the Bill's review period will be shorter than originally planned—as long as my hon. Friend the Minister does not come back to the House for a renewal clause within a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will say whether there is a serious intention of extending the provisions beyond a year.
More importantly, what assessments will be made of the Bill's effects and operation? How will those assessments be reported to the House, and what opportunity will hon. Members have to debate them? This Bill seriously and fundamentally reduces the civil liberties of British citizens. It has to be monitored, as the prevention of terrorism Acts and other legislation are.
My hon. Friend the Minister did not see me when I tried to intervene before he sat down at the end of the short discussion of the previous group of amendments.


I wanted to ask him what would happen if he sought to make an order during a parliamentary recess: would there be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in such an eventuality? The Bill has been rushed through both Houses of Parliament, and is inadequate in many ways. I think that it poses a danger to civil liberties in our society. At the very least, we need a process by which Parliament can examine its effects. We need to know what reports about its operation will be received up to and during the initial match to which it is intended to apply—the international between England and France in September.

Mr. Mike Hancock: It was a bit rich of the Minister to complain about the amount of time for assessment of the Bill's effects being reduced to two years, as he was an enthusiastic supporter of denying either House of Parliament the chance to debate properly what the Bill was meant to achieve. No doubt his lack of enthusiasm for the amendment is tempered by his enthusiasm to get the Bill through the House today.
There has been widespread concern about the Bill in the House. That was evident on Third Reading and at other stages of its progress. It left this House in pretty bad shape, and has returned slightly improved, but the acceptance by the Government of the amendments tabled in another place shows that there was real room for improvement. The reduction of the assessment period is one element of that, but it would have been better if this House had had at least one more day for deliberation on the amendments. We were denied that opportunity. It would also have been better if the House of Lords had had the opportunity to discuss the amendments more fully.
Everyone who wants legislation to curb football hooliganism to succeed will be disappointed with the lack of time for debate. The problem for those who object to aspects of the Bill is that it will return to the House before two years are up. There is no doubt that the provisions will be challenged in the courts, and the Home Secretary will have to come to the House to amend the legislation accordingly.
The Bill may solve this summer's problem, but it will not help in the long term. I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that we have to stamp out hooliganism and make football worth going to see, so that people can be proud of the national team. The Bill will not achieve that. I hope that the Minister will say what he would add to the Bill to improve it.

Mr. Banks: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I also said that the Bill might not work. That is because the beast that we are dealing with changes shape according to the legislation that arrives on the statute book. I do not want to create a hostage to fortune, but I am fairly certain that we will have to revisit this territory again and again, until we get the matter right. We must exercise judgment and, although hon. Members from all parties have pointed out the potential problems, that is what we are doing in introducing the Bill.
I am reasonably agnostic about the amendment. I preferred the original proposal in the Bill for a four-year review period, but I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify one point. I understand that the legislation will come into

effect by the end of August. That means that we will be looking at it again this time next year. Probably the most crucial game to be played by the England team in the course of the next year will take place on 1 September 2001. It is a World cup qualifying match against Germany—in Munich, of all places. I can imagine the sort of loonies who might turn up for that match.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister say to what extent we can be certain that the Bill will still be in place at that time? Will it be adequate to handle problems that might arise in the run-up to the match against Germany on 1 September 2001?

Mr. David Davis: I shall be brief, in the hope that the House will be able to vote on the Liberal Democrat amendment at the end of this short debate. For me and a number of other hon. Members, it is the only way in which the Bill can be rendered remotely acceptable.
Many hon. Members were worried about the use of civil standards of proof and civil process to exercise the criminal sanction of a banning order. After the sunset clause is triggered, it is inevitable that the Bill will return to the House to be recreated. I hope that the Minister will look then at the option of using criminal process rather than civil process, and in that way ensure that the legislation properly respects civil liberties.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: We must remember that the Bill is very rushed. It is inaccurate to say that there has been real opportunity for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I think that one year is quite long enough before the measure is reconsidered. It is thoroughly undesirable that we should legislate in this way. To restrict the Bill's time limit to one year—six months would have been better—is the only ameliorating factor. I am very glad that the other place has proposed this amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As colleagues have said, this is where the Government were defeated in the other place, by a majority of 38. The amendment is the attempt of the other place, given the rush, to do something.
I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). We do not make the removal of civil liberties acceptable by saying that they are removed only for the next two years. My hon. Friends and I take the view that there should be a criminal pre-condition for a banning order, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be summary detention without judicial authority. However, those views apply whether the measure is for one year or two.
No Government would put so much effort into a measure if they did not intend to use its powers. It is not as if the Government want these powers to remain in the locker—they want to apply them. We will be able to judge how effective those powers are.
The sunset provision clearly improves the Bill. The Minister undertook that annual reports would be made, although there is a question about their independence. Before we agree to the amendment, will the Minister confirm that we will have an independent report on the working of the Bill before the renewal orders—which


must be made before next summer's recess—and before the end of the life of the Bill, which must be before the end of summer 2002?

Mr. Charles Clarke: A number of points have been raised in this short debate. Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that we believe that the Bill is well constructed, but we do not yet have a view as to what to do at the end of the period. We genuinely want to look at the situation, see what has happened and decide whether the legislation should be improved or whether further legislation is necessary. To that end, my hon. Friend is right to say that it will be necessary for a report to be made on the legislation so that the situation can be fully discussed. That report will be made. I cannot give the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the commitment—I could not give it to him on Second or Third Readings, either—that the report will be "independent". However, I can give the commitment that we will make a report.
As for a debate in the House, that is a matter for the normal process. Of course, all the normal processes of the House, including Select Committees, will be able to stimulate debate on those matters.

Mr. Corbyn: Is there any possibility of ensuring that an independent report is done on the operation of the legislation, perhaps through surveillance of the matches taking place in September and this autumn? Could someone appointed by the Home Office report independently on the Bill so that we do not have to rely only on statistics and police reports?

Mr. Clarke: I am not ruling that out. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, we will consider how to report in a way that will maximise confidence in what we are doing among all those in the House. A variety of reports are produced—police reports and others have been mentioned—which we look at. We will decide exactly how to report in due course. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot give an absolute commitment that the report will be independent in the way that he wishes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recess. The order referred to under proposed section 22A(2) is subject to the negative resolution procedure. It can therefore be laid and can come into force during the recess in the event that such circumstances arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mentioned the Germany/England game in 2001. The process being considered today is that proposed sections 14B, 21A and 21B will be subject to a one-year initial review period which will take us to the end of August 2001, subject to an order extending it for a further year—to August 2002—which will be subject to affirmative resolution.
In the event that the Bill is agreed to today, the match in September 2001 will be covered, provided that the House agrees an affirmative order before August 2001, which would extend the Bill for another year. That takes us to the period in which the report must be made, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to be clear about this. In the event that the Government decide to extend the life of the measure beyond August 2001, can the Minister assure us that that would be done by an affirmative vote of the House rather than an instrument ordered by a Minister, as that would be ordered during a recess and would therefore have to be voted on retrospectively? That would obviously be too late, because the Bill would already have come into effect.

Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The extension of the legislation by a further year after the first year would be by affirmative, not negative order. So the Government would need to table—presumably before 31 July 2001—an order to extend the measure for a year to August 2002.1 cannot commit myself to the exact date, but that is the framework. That is the meaning of the process that we are discussing.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the report, whether or not it is as independent as we would like, also have to be laid before we have the affirmative resolution votes, not just at the end of the two years of the Bill's life?

Mr. Clarke: The report will be about the first two-year period, assuming that an affirmative order were passed, to consider whether further legislation will be necessary to extend the measure beyond the period that we have discussed. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should have the report before the affirmative order to extend the measure for a further year is made, I understand his point, and so will those who read our proceedings. We will consider what is the appropriate reporting mechanism to the House at that point.
Obviously, in any debate on the affirmative order, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to make any points that they want about the basis of information that is being considered. A report on the content of the legislation has to be laid beforehand, as clause 5 clearly provides. However, I am more ambiguous in my response to the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the report, because that will be important to the House in considering the situation.
With that, I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1999

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 14, leave out ("absolutely or").

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 12, 15 and 17.

Mr. Clarke: This group of amendments contains a number of Government amendments brought forward in response to points made here and in the other place. Amendment No. 5 responds to criticisms made in another


place that a banning order could be made following a conviction for which the offender received an absolute discharge. The amendment removes that provision.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 9 meet the points made in this House by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Their effect is that conduct more than 10 years old cannot be taken into account in considering an order under proposed section 14B unless it relates to an unspent conviction. The amendments also make it clear that the powers under that section do not affect the position under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974—that spent convictions cannot be taken into account in civil proceedings.
Amendment No. 7 removes from proposed section 14C the reference to decisions of a public authority. The potential breadth of that position was commented on widely by several right hon. and hon. Members throughout our debates, and the Government have therefore removed it from the Bill, to remove any uncertainty about the meaning of the phrase.
Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 15 are drafting amendments to make it clear that people cannot be required to surrender their passport in relation to a match to be held in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 17 is an important amendment, ensuring that legal advice and assistance, including advice by way of representation, may be made available for proceedings for a banning order by complaint under proposed section 14B, and for proceedings arising from the issue of a notice under proposed section 21B and all subsequent appeals and abdications. For those reasons, I commend the amendments passed in the other place to the House.
It may be of convenience to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment, which we believe would prevent a court from taking into account circumstances ancillary to a conviction where they occurred more than 10 years previously. That is unnecessary, as the amendments in the Lords have already set up safeguards which we believe ensure that spent convictions will not be taken into account where a conviction remains, even if it is more than 10 years old. It will have been of some gravity and I can see no reason why either it or circumstances ancillary to it should not be taken into account in the making of a banning order.
It might be of help to the House if I make it clear that the phrase "circumstances ancillary to a conviction" which the amendment seeks to delete is defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as including conduct leading to the conviction and the offences which were the subject of that conviction. Only circumstances ancillary to an unspent conviction will be admissible. Any other result would not be sensible. We cannot commend the amendment, but we do commend those passed in another place.

Mr. Hawkins: A number of the amendments from the other place respond to concerns expressed by the Opposition; in particular, the serious concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in relation to spent convictions. These concerns were shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
On amendment No. 5, the Government have taken up a Liberal Democrat amendment which we supported in another place. I have dealt with amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 9, which would give effect to the Government's recognition of the importance of the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I accept that amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 15 are drafting amendments. However, do the Government recognise that the question of matches in Scotland and Northern Ireland must be kept under review? The Minister will be aware that there has been serious violence at matches in Ireland in the not-too-distant past.

Mr. Banks: In the Republic.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it included those who claim to be England fans. He will recall, as I do, the disgraceful scenes of seats being torn out and thrown on to the pitch, and the ensuing violence. The Minister must keep under review the issue of sectarianism can spill over into football-related violence.
On amendment No. 17, my noble Friend Lord Cope welcomed the fact that legal advice and assistance will be available for those who will appear in court to answer a complaint in relation to a banning order. Will the Minister confirm that appropriate indications will be given to the chairman of the Government's new Legal Services Commission, the replacement for the Legal Aid Board, in light of the fact that the Government are accepting the amendment from another place?
Does the Minister recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord Ackner in another place in relation to proceedings being called civil when they were criminal proceedings, or certainly more of a criminal kind than civil? That concern is shared in all parts of this House and another place. I ask the Minister to confirm that that will be recognised in any instructions given to the chairman of the Legal Services Commission and his staff.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a ridiculous race against the clock, but here goes. Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 17 are good. Amendments Nos. 12 and 15, which are drafting amendments, are also good. Amendment No. 10 is good as far as it goes, but I would be grateful if the Minister indicated where somebody can get their passport back, if it has been surrendered under the Bill, in the event of a family funeral or other urgent business. We were given an undertaking that that would be possible, but I see it nowhere in the Bill.
Unless the Minister can adequately satisfy me, I will seek to gain the House's support for amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 8. I support the point of view of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on amendment No. 8, which would make sure that spent convictions are not brought into play. I have spent as much time as I could on drafting the amendment, which refers to "circumstances ancillary to a conviction". That appears to bring back into play things that should have been excluded.
This is not a draft from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire; the Government produced it in response to his point. However, the


amendment does not protect against previous history, pre-dating the control order by 10 years. That worries me. I do not pretend to have a perfect knowledge, but I am advised that it is not necessary. I know it relates to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which I have checked. I have seen the definition, which does not appear to deal with the concern that this undermines the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am always doubtful whether Pepper v. Hart has any real function. However, if the Minister were to make it clear that the use of this portion of the Act was specifically not to permit circumstances ancillary to spent convictions over 10 years old, that might go far to repair the possible damage that worries the hon. Gentleman and myself.

Mr. Hughes: I would rather have such an admission than nothing, even though it would be of limited value. I would be happy not to push the amendment, although I would like us to vote on something. If the Minister cannot give that admission, I am afraid that it will not be possible.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to Scotland and Northern Ireland and we will keep the situation under review. It is worth emphasising that someone subject to a banning order can be ordered to report to a police station when a match is being played in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments make it clear that passport surrender is not required for those matches.
In terms of the Legal Services Commission, I can give a commitment that we will ensure that all the contents of the Bill—including the amendments—are passed to the Lord Chancellor and through him to the Legal Services Commission. I will study the points made by Lord Ackner. I agree that it is always important to get clarity as between civil and criminal activities.
In terms of getting one's passport back—referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—section 20 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 contains that provision. Circumstances ancillary to a conviction are admissible only in relation to convictions which are themselves admissible. Spent convictions will not be admissible, nor will circumstances ancillary to them. That is the effect of section 4(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [17 July] and Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you can do nothing about it now, but may we have a mechanism to deal with cases in which the Government, at no notice, guillotine a Bill, effectively meaning that no Opposition amendment can

be voted on? The Government produced a guillotine this morning and that has been the effect. We have moved as quickly as possible and hon. Members on both sides have declined to speak, although they wanted to. Even so, we have been unable to test the opinion of the House on any Opposition amendment, and that must be a parliamentary disgrace.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take a further point of order.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we would have an opportunity to vote on the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to one of the Lords amendments. Have we had no vote because we went past 4.29 pm, or do the Government amendments supersede anything said during the previous debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The procedure that we have followed was set out in the motion. The House votes on the amendment immediately before it, and then decides on all other Government amendments.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made it clear that he wished to call a vote on his amendment. As there was no dissent from the Chair, I understood that there would be a vote on his manuscript amendment. I find it very distressing that, on a Bill as serious as this one, we cannot vote on an amendment to a Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that we simply ran out of time.

Miss Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that the timetable for the Bill was decided by the House in a series of guillotine motions. However, bearing in mind Madam Speaker's comments yesterday about the need for the House to hold the Executive to account, may I ask, in the best possible spirit, that Madam Speaker should examine what has happened during the Bill's passage? There has been a long series of events—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Bearing in mind what is being said, and given Madam Speaker's comments yesterday, the least that the House can do is to listen in silence to the right hon. Lady.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Might Madam Speaker consider the procedures used for the Bill? At various points, we have moved from one stage to another—particularly from Committee to Report to Third Reading—under a series of draconian guillotines. The Opposition supported the Bill, despite which—and although our support meant that there was no need for such measures—proper parliamentary scrutiny has been prevented.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see another point of order coming.

Mr. David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can make a practical point in support


of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In order to reach his amendment, we should have had to vote down amendments Nos. 18,19,20 and 21, and still had time remaining. That would have been impossible in today's debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will appreciate that these are not matters on which the Chair can rule now. I have no doubt that the House and others outside it will have heard the points made.

Utilities Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 203. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 3

TRANSFER TO AUTHORITY AND COUNCIL OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out from ("Directors")") to ("are") in line 4

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 36 to 50, 52 to 54, 150 to 158, 174, 187, 206 to 212, 221, 225, 226 and 245.

Dr. Howells: The amendments are concerned with the consumer council, and, in a few cases, the authority. There are three sub-sets within the group. The first set make arrangements for independent adjudication of disputes about the council's rights of access to information from the authority or from companies. The second group affect the council's powers to report on its investigations. Finally, a set of miscellaneous, minor amendments improves and corrects the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: We are obviously in for a long evening because there is much important material in the Lords amendments. Fortunately, the House has a lot of time in which to deal with the Bill, in contrast with the last matter before us on which important changes to the rights of individual citizens were disgracefully railroaded through the House under a guillotine.
The Utilities Bill is not in the same category as the Football (Disorder) Bill, but it introduces important measures that require our mature consideration. I will not detain the House unduly on this group, nor will I linger on each amendment. It would be far from my mind to do that.
My eye has lit, however, upon amendment No. 38, the wording of which could give rise to worries under some interpretations. The Minister will wish to leaf through his notes to consider the amendment. Of course, he will already have done so, because he is doubtless well acquainted with every one of the amendments before us. We shall wish, over the next few hours, to tease out just how well he has read them. For now, however, I wish to ask only about amendment No. 38.
The amendment states:
Information relating to a particular individual or body may be included in a report to be published under section (5)(b) if—

(a) that individual or body has consented to the publication;
(b) it is information that is available to the public from some other source; or
(c) it is not information the publication of which would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.
It may well be thought that paragraph (a) is relatively uncontroversial, and one cannot argue with the proposition that if an individual or body has consented, it is perfectly proper for publication to proceed. We can dispose of that provision without further ado.
Paragraph (b) is more problematic, however. Real questions arise about "some other source". Wording so loose and general must give rise to some concern. There is no further definition, and no restriction is proposed. What if the other source were to be one normally bound by confidentiality?

Dr. Howells: If it were commercially confidential, it would not be available to the public. We are discussing information already available to the public from other sources.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful. We are discussing a duplication of effort, then. Information already available elsewhere will simply be rearranged and represented. That being so, one wonders how worthwhile the amendment is.

Dr. Howells: Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. On this Bill, I have been constantly accused of including all sorts of Henry VIII powers and so on. With this amendment, I am trying to include the briefest provision possible, and am finding myself criticised for it by the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a fount of common sense in these matters.

Mr. Forth: I am glad to hear that—as I would have expected of him—the Minister has paid close attention to the matter, exercised his judgment and decided that, on balance, the amendment is acceptable if not actually beneficial.
The most worrying of the three paragraphs in amendment No. 38 is (c), which states:
it is not information the publication of which would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.
Here, we enter a judgmental area. It would appear that the council is being given the power to take the decision. That is a serious judgment in any case, but we will have to be more than usually satisfied to give it explicitly to the council.
As hon. Members well know, making available information, in particular about an individual or body, can be extremely prejudicial in many ways. If the body is a commercial business, it could seriously affect its share value, for example. In some circumstances, it could prejudice the degree of confidence that the public have in a public body. In the case of an individual, I do not need to tell hon. Members about the damaging or deleterious effect that publication of information about them might have. Almost daily, there are cases where the publication of information can be damaging to an individual.
I wonder what safeguards might exist. Paragraph (c) simply states, baldly that
in the opinion of the Council
the information should not be judged seriously or prejudicially to affect interests. There is nothing to say what recourse an individual or body might have if the council judged that publication was not prejudicial, but the individual felt that it was.

Dr. Howells: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, other parts of the Bill contain stringent provisions to ensure opportunities for appeal about the demand for information, in which case the decision would go to an adjudicator. In this case, the adjudicator will, temporarily, be the authority or regulator, who is paid a great deal of money to make such decisions.

Mr. Forth: I am only partly reassured by that intervention. The timing of these events is crucial. If the information is already in the public domain—about me, for example—and I then tell that highly paid adjudicator that I do not believe that it is right and he agrees, the damage has already been done. If the information is already in the public domain, what is the point of that highly paid adjudicator coming to my rescue?

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point, but as he said, it is all to do with timing. The adjudicator would adjudicate on the initial offering up of the information, not subsequent to it being offered up. If the information was delivered on request, the adjudicator would prevent it from being put in the public domain if he felt that it would be harmful to the company involved.

Mr. Forth: If the Minister is telling me that he is satisfied that there is a mechanism whereby, before the information is in the public domain, the individual or body would be apprised of the fact, that is sufficient.

Dr. Howells: indicated assent.

Mr. Forth: I gather that that is what the Minister is telling me. If he is satisfied that mechanisms exist properly to protect individuals and bodies from potential damage, of course I accept his word. He has studied the matter and given it his mature consideration, and that is his view. Therefore, on that basis, I am prepared to accept what he says.
That brief exchange shows—I am sure that I do not need to persuade you of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the value and necessity of the scrutiny that we are undertaking. It is one thing for a Bill to go through all its stages in this House and to go to another place, it is another for the Lords to have amended it. It is equally essential, is it not, for us to have the opportunity to consider what has been suggested and to determine how appropriate it is?
I pay the Minister yet another tribute—he stands high in my regard anyway. At least with this Bill we are not being constrained by the usual jackboot of a guillotine motion. The Football (Disorder) Bill, which we have just considered, was a disgrace. However, the Minister is content for us to debate this Bill properly and to consider it. I pay tribute to him and, indeed, to the Whip on duty, who is also generously allowing the House proper time to consider the matter appropriately.
Having obtained the assurances that I had hoped for, I am satisfied that I need not challenge the Government on this matter any further.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 6

PUBLICATION OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION ABOUT CONSUMER MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 17, leave out from ("matter") to end of line 20 and insert
("which relates to the affairs of a particular individual or body of persons (corporate or unincorporate), where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Authority, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body.")

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 18 to 35, 51, 97, 107, 132 to 137, 141, 143, 168, 178, 180, 197, 227 and 239.

Dr. Howells: The amendments to clause 6 in this group are designed to tidy things up, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are concerned with the provision of information to consumers and others. Therefore, I commend them to the House

Mr. Forth: Amendment No. 143 caught my eye in this group. Interestingly, it would insert after clause 102 a new clause entitled, "General restrictions on the disclosure of information", which follows somewhat in the spirit of our previous debate, and it runs to two and a half pages. One would have thought that under normal circumstances, an item of such gravity, substance and scope would have encouraged the Minister to say a little more about his views, given that it covers important and wide areas.
Even right at the beginning, the new clause states:
Information which…has been obtained … by virtue of the provisions and…relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business—
we are in the same territory as for the previous group of amendments about which we had a brief exchange—
shall not be disclosed during the lifetime of the individual or so long as the business continues to be carried on, except as provided below.
That could raise several questions—although not about the lifetime of the individual, which is a fairly open-and-shut and definitive matter. The phrase
so long as the business continues to be carried on
requires a little more exploration. I shall assume that, for these purposes, the word "business" is used in the generic sense and that it covers public and private companies, and presumably even partnerships and so on.
Might the business be brought to an end voluntarily—wound up or put into liquidation? The business might be temporarily suspended. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and the Minister are far more expert in such matters than I could

ever be. There are several different ways in which the business might cease to trade. The new clause uses—unusually—the more colloquial phrase
as long as the business continues to be carried on.
Does that form of words hold water? Its accuracy and usefulness bear examination. The question requires a brief response from the Minister.
The question of consent arises under subsection (2), which states that:
Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure made with the consent of the individual or the person for the time being carrying on the business.
Does that imply that only one person is involved in carrying on the business? Surely it cannot do so. Does it imply that only the consent of one of the people carrying on the business is needed? In normal circumstances, more than one person would be involved in carrying on a business and thus consent should be required from all or a majority of them, or from someone who has been given legal power to give such consent. The provision does not make that clear, although I am sure that real substance and meaning lie behind it. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify the matter before the Bill makes much more progress.
The new clause notes that subsection (1) does not apply to disclosure in a large number of circumstances; for example, if
it is made for the purpose of facilitating the performance— or—
is required by a notice under section 38(1 A).
Matters become complicated when we reach paragraph (d) which states that the subsection does not apply to disclosure if
it is made by one licence holder to another and is required by that other licence holder for purposes connected with the carrying on of relevant activities.
By the time one reaches that stage, matters seem to be at arm's length and second hand. I assume that the provision is watertight, although the details make me wonder about that.
Subsection (4) gives a detailed list of provisions under which subsection (1) will not apply. The most worrying is paragraph (h). Knowing me as he does, the Minister will not be surprised that I mention that paragraph in passing—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton might also be worried about it. It states that disclosure of information under subsection (1) will not apply
in pursuance of a Community obligation.
I assume that that means a European Union obligation.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wash his mouth out.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to provoke me; he is much too nice for that. I am merely wondering about the wording. Is it legally watertight? I was elected to the European Parliament in the good old days when it was an institution of the European Economic Community. I was relaxed about that. I became more worried when it passed through various ghastly transformations into, first, the European Community—dropping the word "Economic", which worried me as much as it worried many others—and then


the European Union. Where does this Community thing come in? Is it "the Community"? The word begins with a capital, which makes it rather grand and important. Why is the body not described as the European Union? Is the Minister trying to hide something? Is there a sinister plot?
The serious point is that I need to know whether the word "Community" is being used correctly. If so, what does it mean in this new clause? What does it cover? Is it the European Union in all its manifestations? Is it all the arms, branches and bodies of the EU? What exactly is a "Community obligation"? Is it only a directive or could it be something else? It certainly cannot be anything to do with the European convention on human rights. Many people get confused about that, but I know it cannot be the convention because that is a matter for the Council of Europe.
Will the Minister give us some help to interpret this seemingly innocent provision? It may be inaccurate, useless or even misleading. I want to know the extent of the obligations that arise from that, albeit rather loose, wording of "Community". We need to know much more about that.
Subsection (5) contains a long list of some very important people. It talks about
The persons and bodies specified for the purposes of subsection (4)(a)
and about
a Minister of the Crown.
Presumably, that means any and all Ministers of the Crown—we know that they are omniscient, omnipotent and ubiquitous. I want clarification on whether that does indeed cover, as a generic term, Parliamentary Undersecretaries of State as well as Ministers proper—Ministers of State and Secretaries of State.
The subsection then lists the Competition Commission and all sorts of directors of very important things. Then, rather oddly, it says:
a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain.
Out of that seemingly innocent element, a couple of intriguing questions arise as to whether the local weights and measures authority is suddenly thrust to the same level of prominence and competence as Ministers of the Crown on one hand and the Civil Aviation Authority on the other.
More intriguing is the inclusion of the term "in Great Britain." I assume that it was included advisedly, and I just want to ask in passing what happens outside Great Britain and why those who are not blessed to be in Great Britain are not to be given the benefits of the provision. It would help me to know, before I give my approval to the amendment, whether people outside Great Britain have some other means of being satisfied by these provisions.
I do not want to delay the House unduly. I could have picked up many more of what I consider to be anomalies and slacknesses. We shall go into a lot of other things in more detail as required—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, on the Front Bench, is itching to get his teeth into all this nonsense—but I think that I am really asking, given the extent to which the Government are prepared to accept these amendments from another place, whether they are really satisfied that the amendments are tightly drafted,

that they are viable in terms of the law, that this whole thing holds water and that we shall not be creating even more trouble for ourselves than might already exist.
That is the general thrust of my remarks. I just wanted to take a few detailed examples to give what I said a slightly sharper edge, but I have probably cited enough to give a flavour. I am asking the Minister, in his usual charming but competent way, to put our minds at rest, to take us through the matter, and to display his mastery of the material, as he usually does. If he did, I would find that very satisfying.

Dr. Howells: Flattery will get the right hon. Gentleman everywhere. I thank him. I think that I referred to him as the hon. Gentleman earlier; it must have been because I had dashed into the Chamber, and was clearly the result of a rush of blood to the brain.
Lords amendment No. 143, which the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned about, is, as he knows, part of a larger group of amendments which carry forward the well-established convention that it should be a criminal offence to make an unauthorised disclosure of information obtained under legislation that empowers public authorities to require information from individuals and businesses. That is already the case under the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, but the sections in those Acts differ slightly from each other. The amendments repeal both those sections and substitute a single regime which will apply to both Acts, as is appropriate where a single licensing authority operates aligned licensing regimes.
The new clause which, essentially is Lords amendment No. 143—the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it is a long amendment—prohibits disclosures and then defines certain exceptions where disclosure is permitted. That is a complicated process, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. As a rule, the exceptions are for disclosures between regulatory authorities to facilitate the performance of the receiving authority's statutory functions.
The publication powers conferred on the authority and the council elsewhere in the Bill are generally exceptions to the prohibition on disclosure as well. Each is usually subject to its own harm test, limiting, in other words, what may be disclosed without the consent of those to whom the information in question relates. The new clause will also apply to information obtained under the Bill, for example, by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council under clause 24, with which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar.
5 pm
The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the definition of a business that has ceased to trade and what happens if a business is in suspension. Business has either been wound up or it has not. If it has been suspended temporarily, but not wound up, business continues. That is a difficult one, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised it because it gives me a chance to clarify it for the House.
I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's search for the definition of "Community". He almost had me believing that we could substitute "Commonwealth" or something else for it. I have to remind him that he was a member of a Government who signed the country up to


Maastricht. It is awful to have to say that this late in the term, but they did. The phrase "Community obligations" refers to the obligations of the European Union as it exists now and the European Community as it existed previously in timeless legislation. That is defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978, with which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar as I am.
The right hon. Gentleman properly asked about the areas of this great country that are not included. Northern Ireland is the missing element. That is because the Weights and Measures Act 1986 does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

PAYMENTS BY LICENCE HOLDERS RELATING TO NEW ARRANGEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

Mrs. Liddell: Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 relate to clause 8. This gives the authority powers to modify payment conditions in licences to reflect the establishment of the authority and the council. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make it clear that the authority can modify payment conditions to recover expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in establishing both the authority and the council, and that any preparatory costs incurred by the Secretary of State can be recovered.
Amendment No. 10 will facilitate the transition from the old to the new payment conditions by permitting the directors general, the Secretary of State, or both, to carry out the required consultation on the new conditions prior to the establishment of the authority. The new conditions can then be in place from the date that the new bodies are established.

Mr. Edward Leigh: While waiting for us to reach this group, I have been trying to understand what amendment No. 8 means. We are told that it relates to line 21 of page 5. Clause 8(3)(2) refers to
the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the establishment of the Authority or the Council.
The amendment replaces the word "or" with "and". I am not sure why the other place felt that that was necessary. Will the Minister explain that to me, please?

Mrs. Liddell: I think that the other place believed that it was a tidying up and a clarification. There has been lengthy debate in both Houses and this is an opportunity for us to ensure the clarity of the legislation wherever the two new authorities come into play. It is a common-sense provision. I do not feel particularly strongly about it, but

it tidies up the legislation and makes it much more coherent. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always willing to accept good suggestions.

Mr. Nick Gibb: I should like to help the Minister in answering my hon. Friend's question. This is one of many tidying-up and redrafting amendments. The Bill was incompetently drafted. The clause is an example of bad drafting. It is clear when one takes the word "and" out and puts "or" back in that the clause will not be satisfactory. There have been more than 600 Government amendments to the Bill. It is a classic example—it is just one of many—of a poorly drafted Bill being brought to the House in a rush. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for raising this issue.

Mrs. Liddell: I shall not get involved in questions of grammar with the hon. Gentleman. However, I merely point out that, when we started to consider the Bill, he said that he supported its broad thrust, but claimed that there would be 1,000 amendments. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that it is not often that he is right—and he is wrong again.
Labour Members are anxious for the Bill to reach the statute book. It will ensure that consumers of energy get the full benefits to which they are entitled. It should lead to a reduction of 10 per cent, in wholesale electricity prices. I am not surprised that some Conservative Members wish to delay it.
Amendment No. 10 will facilitate the transition from the old to the new payment conditions by permitting the directors general and the Secretary of State—or both—to carry out consultation on the new conditions prior to the establishment of the authority. The new conditions can then be in place from the date that the new bodies are established
Amendment No. 11 deals with concerns expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State's powers in clause 8(8) to direct the inclusion of payment conditions were too widely drawn. The amendment ensures that the powers of direction can be used only in relation to the expenses of the council, and the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the establishment of the authority and the council.

Mr. Forth: As the House knows, this matter relates to payments by licence holders relating to new arrangements generally. It also refers to the arrangements that are to be made under the Bill whereby the authority can modify the condition of licences. More specifically, before modifying the conditions of a licence, the authority is required to consult the licence holders. These are important provisions, so it is important that we understand them properly.
I want to pause for a moment to consider amendment No. 10, which would insert the words:
Any consultation undertaken by the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply or the Secretary of State before the commencement of subsection (6)—


the subsection that refers to the modification of the conditions of a licence and the requirement for consultation—
shall be as effective for the purposes of that subsection as if undertaken by the Authority after that time.
In effect, it says that if something happens before something, it will be as effective as if something had happened after something. I am slightly confused by that provision. I have no doubt that there is an elegant explanation for it and that the Minister will provide it shortly. However, for the time being, the meaning of it defeats me. I am not sure what the purpose of those words is and whether they will achieve it.
Like other hon. Members, I understand the point behind the original words in subsection (6), which states that, before the conditions of the licence are modified,
the Authority shall consult the licence holder.
It may be my fault for not spotting this point earlier, but it might not have been a bad idea for the obligation to consult to be somewhat wider. I can imagine circumstances in which the modifications of the conditions of one licence could—and almost certainly would—affect people other than the licence holder, especially if the conditions were eased or payments were reduced.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out, more than 600 amendments have already been made to this rather imperfect Bill. I am not at all surprised by that, but I shall not dwell on the point—you would not want me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about whether the consultation should go wider. However, I want to dwell for a moment longer on amendment No. 10. We need much more clarity about the amendment's purpose in referring to consultation being as effective if it is undertaken before the commencement of subsection (6) as it would be if it were undertaken afterwards. We need to know why those words should be included and what they add to the Bill.
More pertinently, we should ask whether such wording risks confusing licence holders. Indeed, it may even confuse the authority and the director general more than it will help them. Before we agree to the amendment, we must be satisfied that it adds value and clarity. My fear—subject to the Minister explaining the amendment fully, as I am sure that she will—is that the amendment may serve to confuse, and not to clarify. The last thing that we want at this stage, and that the Government would want, is for words to be added to the Bill that would confuse people and undermine its purpose.

Mrs. Liddell: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was unable to join us in Committee, where we had considerable discussion on these matters. If he had had the time to refer to the Official Report, he might not be questioning these issues. The measures concern the arrangements for the transition from having two authorities to having a single authority. They also aim to guarantee that there will be maximum consultation to ensure that everyone is content, and comfortable with the legislation.
A similar provision appears in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The right hon. Gentleman is probably more familiar with that than I am because it was introduced by the Administration of which he was a member. It is important that we have the correct

transitional arrangements and, without this provision, we would find ourselves unable to consult until after the establishment of the authority and the council, which would mean that consultation would be curtailed and would cause delay.
Given that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in this House and the other place have welcomed the measures, I do not expect him to be too discommoded by the amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

Clause 9

OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES UNDER 1986 ACT

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 6, line 24, at end insert
("or the Utilities Act 2000")

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following: amendment in lieu thereof, Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14, 15 and amendment in lieu thereof, and 16, 17, 228, 234, 235 and 241.

Mrs. Liddell: I do not want to delay the House unduly. Amendment No. 12, together with amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17, clarify what is meant by the functions of the authority and the Secretary of State for the purposes of clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15. They also clarify what is meant by activities subject to obligations for the purposes of the finance duty in sub-paragraph (2)(b) of clauses 9 and 13.
Clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 contain obligations that relate to the functions of the authority and Secretary of State. Clauses 9 and 13 set out their principal objective and general duties; clauses 10 and 14 oblige the authority to have regard to social and environmental guidance, and clauses 11 and 15 contain important obligations concerned with health and safety.
Following Royal Assent, the functions of the authority and the Secretary of State will be largely contained in the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989, but both will also have functions under stand-alone provisions of the Utilities Bill—that is, provisions that do not simply amend the existing Gas and Electricity Acts. For example, clause 4 requires the authority to prepare, consult on and publish a forward work programme, and clause 26 empowers the authority to publish a notice issued by the consumer council setting out its reasons for refusing to supply information.
5.15 pm
The amendments make it clear that references to the functions of the authority or the Secretary of State in clauses 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 relate to their functions under the provisions of the Bill, as well as to their functions under the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989.
Similarly, the amendments make it clear that, for the purposes of the finance duty in subsection (2)(b) of clauses 9 and 13, the reference to the activities of licence


holders that are subject to "obligations" extend to stand-alone obligations under this Bill, as well as to obligations under the amended Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 16, which were divided on in another place, would place the authority and the Secretary of State under a duty to exercise their functions in the manner that they consider best calculated to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy strategy. The authority and the Secretary of State must, as part of their primary duty, consider the needs of future, as well as existing, consumers. That requirement necessarily imports longer-term thinking about security of supply into their processes.
We accept that many people think that it would be desirable to make this even clearer in the Bill, and the Government are therefore prepared to accept the amendments.
Let me deal briefly with amendments Nos. 228 and 235, to assist the House. Each of those repeal provisions of the Gas Act 1986, which are replaced by equivalent provisions contained in the Bill. Amendment No. 228 repeals the latter half of section 47(7) of the Gas Act, which is the equivalent of paragraph 10 of schedule 1 to the Bill. Amendment No. 235 repeals paragraph 15(2) of schedule 7 of the Gas Act, which is the equivalent of clause 5(9) of the Bill.
Finally, amendments Nos. 234 and 241 repeal spent provisions of the Gas Act and the Electricity Act respectively, which are concerned with the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland.

Mr. Gibb: The Bill started life as the Department of Trade and Industry's great flagship Bill, with 134 clauses and a new regulatory regime for all four utilities—gas, electricity, telecommunications and water. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State introduced the Bill in glowing, almost adulatory terms. He said:
The Bill is forward-looking. It sets out a new framework for utilities regulation that is fit and appropriate for the 21st century.
The Bill puts utilities regulation on a sure footing for the 21st century, and is good for consumers, good for competition and good for the utilities.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 795.]
That was on 31 January but, by 2 March, it was clear that, for the telecommunications industry and the water utilities, the Bill was bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the utilities. That is why both water and telecommunications were withdrawn from the Bill in a humiliating admission of incompetence by the Government, especially the Secretary of State.
I warned the Minister in Committee that there would be 900 amendments, not 1,000, as she said. In the event, there were more than 600. If I exaggerated, I did so only slightly. The Government made strenuous efforts to reduce the number of amendments by merging some of them to get the number down to 600.

Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps I should be delighted that the hon. Gentleman has joined us, because I understand that

he was an accountant in a previous life. If he thinks that the difference between 600 and 900 is slight, I am glad that he never did my tax returns.

Mr. Gibb: It is slight in this context. Huge efforts were made by civil servants to redraft amendments to ensure that they conformed with that figure.

Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whether the discrepancy in his accounting is large or small, it is not as great as chopping the Bill in half and adding back 600 bits?

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, especially as those 600-odd amendments were to a Bill of 134 clauses. The Government could almost have started again with more efficiency than just accepting 600 amendments, the vast majority of which dealt with poor drafting and poor policy analysis. I do not wish to be unkind, but it became abundantly clear in Committee that the Ministers were not up to speed with what was going on; they were certainly not driving the policy forward.
This flagship Bill, which was part and parcel of the Government's so-called modernisation programme, has become a huge embarrassment to them, and the House even considered referring it back to Committee. It started as one of those eye-catching initiatives with which the Prime Minister likes to be personally associated, but it has finished up as an example of how not to legislate. Even the Secretary of State, who is absent today, is trying to avoid being associated with it.
The essence of the Bill is to change the role of the regulator from that of an economic regulator to one of regulating for the sake of it. The gas and electricity regulators were put in place when the industries were privatised in 1986 and 1989 to deal with the fact that they were effectively monopolies and to ensure that those monopolies did not exploit their position. They were also charged with promoting competition—a role that they have carried out in an exemplary fashion during the past 11 or 14 years. The retail prices index minus X formula applied by the regulators has given the industries huge incentives to cut costs, increase efficiency and become more customer focused. Electricity and gas prices have fallen by 30 per cent, in real terms since privatisation and huge competition exists in the gas and electricity industries.
In 1988, when the Prime Minister led for the Opposition in opposing the privatisation of electricity industry, he said:
outside of the Conservative party…it is barely in issue that prices will rise because of privatisation.
The truth is that they have fallen. On competition, he said:
I would have thought that it was…virtually impossible that anyone would build a power station and invest hundreds of millions of pounds, unless they received a guarantee covering the capital cost, the fuel cost and, probably … the operating costs, too … the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense.—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681–84.]
The truth is that there has been an influx of new power stations, all of which are in competition. There are 27 new power stations, and 50 new independent power producers have entered the generation market since privatisation with a total market share of 21 per cent.
Under the Bill, the Government are changing the role and obligations of the regulators. That role would also be amended under the Lords amendments. It is important to understand the philosophy behind the Bill. It is set out in a pamphlet, entitled "Regulating in the Public Interest", written by Dan Corry in 1994. Some hon. Members might not be aware that Dan Corry is one of the Government's huge army of special advisers. He said that his pamphlet
tries…to take us back to the reasons that we have regulation in order to see whether this leads us towards a different vision for the way forward.
Interestingly, he continued:
Once we accept that regulation is here to stay, we are into the world of how we should use it. This is a classic issue of interventionism in the workings of the economy.

Sir Michael Spicer: I declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is even worse than he suggests because the concept of social regulation will replace that of economic regulation and because the system that will replace the existing markets system is largely contract based and anticompetitive in many respects?

Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall deal with some of the comments in the newspapers and on Second Reading.
That pamphlet is, in essence, a blueprint for the Bill. The key point is that the Government believe that, because the regulators exist for those industries, they should be used to deliver some of the Government's social and political programmes. If the Government had their way, we would also have a regulator for the supermarkets, for car retailers and for a number of other things.
The interventionist instincts of the Labour party and of those who share its philosophy are alive and kicking and prevalent in the Bill. The amendments are the key to that philosophy. That is why the order of the objectives for the regulator has been changed. That is why the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the authority to take into account directives from the Secretary of State on social matters when regulating the utilities.
That is the fundamental difference that the Bill brings to the role of the regulator. It begs the question: what happens when the market, the industry or a sector of the industry becomes fully competitive? If we believe that the regulator's role is to mimic competition, once a sector becomes competitive, the regulator's role is effectively redundant and should disappear. The Health and Safety Executive can deal with safety issues; the Competition Commission can deal with any anti-competitive forces or alliances; but the specific role for a regulator of that particular sector of that industry should go. The electricity supply industry is one such example. It is highly competitive, so now is the time to remove the regulator from that sector altogether.
If one believes, as the Government seem to, that the regulator has a wider role even in a fully competitive market—even when competition has fully arrived—there can be no rolling back of the regulator's role. That point was put to the Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate. He was asked whether he believed that
there is still a role for the regulator when the utility sector involved … is fully exposed to fierce competition.

His answer was:
As a general rule, my personal view is that regulators are not appropriate in those circumstances, and I should much rather have the discipline of an effective market.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 793.]
That is his personal view, which contradicts the basis of the Bill that he has proposed. He tries to justify it by saying that, in many areas, the market is not perfect and thus a role for the regulator remains, but no market is absolutely perfect. However, most markets do not—apart from the utilities and financial services sectors—have a regulator. Provided that there is fierce competition, there is no need for a regulator to mimic competition. If, in those circumstances, the regulator remains, its role has become something else: a regulator for the sake of regulation, for the sake of intervening for policy purposes. Therefore, it is in essence a return to increased state control.
It is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) referred when he wrote in The Daily Telegraph that the Utilities Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Bill
will establish an entirely new form of government, the like of which this country has not experienced before: rule by regulator.
Neil Bennett in The Sunday Telegraph called it
the near renationalisation of the gas and power industries.
It is why, during the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend said:
regulators are being given social and political objectives, which are antithetical to competition. We are witnessing a parallel system of government emerging.
He went on to say:
That is socialism by regulation; it is socialism on the sly and it is nationalisation by the back door. I hope that one of our first objectives when we return to government will be to dismantle all the regulatory apparatus, except for that which focuses on competition because competition is the true friend of the consumer.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 828.]
I tell him here and now categorically that, when we return to power, we will significantly reduce the role of the utility regulators and confine their role to that of mimicking a competitive market and to promoting competition.
I have tried to establish that the Bill creates a whole new type of industry regulator, with wide new objectives, obligations and powers. It is those extra duties that the Government have imposed on it that will involve Ofgem—or GEMA as it should now be called—in higher cost, all of which will be passed on to the industry and thence on to the consumer.
In fact, industry will suffer three forms of increased costs as a result of the Bill. The first is higher licence payments to cover the increased costs faced by the regulator himself. The second relates to the higher cost incurred directly by industry as it implements the social and other obligations required of it. The third is the higher cost of capital that results from greater regulatory risk. That is why the Bill has been so poorly received by industry, despite all the alleged consultation. Indeed, Ian Byatt, the erstwhile water regulator, said of the Bill when it included water:
The Bill's enlargement of the scope for discretionary intervention by regulators, politicians and advocates is likely to extract a high price from utility industries, and all consumers will pay it.


Clauses 9 and 13 are two of the most important clauses in the Bill. They set out the objectives of both the Secretary of State and the regulator, and thus constitute the lodestone on which the whole direction of regulation of the utilities is based. Those "objective" clauses not only change the regulator's role, but change the order and priority of other objectives.
5.30 pm
The Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, which privatised the industries concerned, are similarly worded, setting out the regulators' objectives as established at the time of privatisation. Three key objectives were specified. The first was to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity were satisfied. The second was to secure that licence holders were able to finance the carrying on of the activities involved. The third was to promote competition. There were three equal duties, relating to security of supply, financial viability and the promotion of competition.
That is the current regulatory regime. Under the Bill, however, the primary objective is to promote consumers' interests. Issues such as security of supply and financial viability have been downgraded to second place.
The great achievement of the current regulatory regime is this. The RPI minus X formula gave industry incentives to reduce costs while maintaining financial viability, at the same time as delivering lower prices to the consumer. Everyone knows—even Labour pretends to accept—that the private sector is more efficient than the state sector. The RPI minus X formula was established to ensure that a proportion of that saving was passed on to the consumer.
Of course, once a fully competitive market has been established there is no need for a formula, because the market itself will deliver the price reduction. The RPI minus X formula is only a mechanism enabling the benefits derived from efficiency savings to be shared; it does not, in itself, deliver efficiencies. It is the effect of being in the private sector that delivers the forces leading to greater efficiency.
The regulator needs to be aware—this is the point of the amendment—that he cannot simply pluck the "X" figure from the air, and expect efficiencies to be delivered. There comes a point at which diminishing returns start to kick in. After a number of years in the private sector, the huge efficiency savings resulting from release from the lethargy of the state sector will no longer be kept up. Efficiency will continue to increase, but not at the same dramatic rate. That is why, under the existing system, there was always a prime duty to maintain the financial viability of the companies. Demoting that objective means that the regulator is almost forced to put such concerns very low on his list of considerations—which leads to the real danger of over-prescriptive and draconian regimes.
There is another real danger, of which we are beginning to see signs in the utilities even before the implementation of the Bill. In Yorkshire, for example, Kelda, which owns Yorkshire Water, has sought to transfer all the assets of its business to a mutual trading company. Ofwat has said no to that, but the proposal is significant.
Because of what is now widely regarded as an excessively draconian regime, the returns—the income—that Ofwat is allowing the water companies to make are so low that the market value of shares in the companies is below the book value of the assets that they own. If they simply sold all their assets, such as buildings and pipelines, and deposited the money in a building society, they could generate a significantly higher income than they are making from the provision of water services.
Yorkshire Water wanted to sell its assets, and to sell them to a mutual trading company. The assets would have been sold in exchange for debt, so the mutual trading company would have been 100 per cent, debt financed. There is no doubt that interest on debts must be paid, although there is an element of choice governing whether a company pays a dividend. In this case, the regulator would not be able to force the funders of the asset to take a lower return.
The regime has therefore become so unattractive that equity capital—entrepreneurial, innovative, private-sector business—does not want to run the business. It wishes to withdraw and to leave the supply of water to a mutual trading company. The danger of large mutual companies is that they have reduced incentive to innovate and to provide improved services. Philosophically, they are in many ways akin to the state sector. As the Financial Times said yesterday in an editorial:
mutual ownership…leaves big questions as to how the new managers could be kept sharp in pursuit of efficiency.
The point that the Minister has to take into account is that, although Ofwat has refused to allow the restructuring, in the long run there is nothing that any regulator can do to stop equity owners from withdrawing their capital from businesses that are impossible to run at a profit because the regulatory regime is too harsh.
Mutualisation is effectively the renationalisation of those industries by over-regulation. If the Bill results in over-burdensome regulation in electricity and gas, as there is in water, we could see—I am not sure, but we may already be seeing it in gas distribution—similar trends in those industries. The replacement of equity funding with debt is the first step in that process.
The purpose of our amendment in lieu is to put financial viability higher up the regulator's consciousness. It is important that the regimes are carefully balanced. The Bank of England has a similar imperative. Anyone can cure inflation by raising interest rates to 100 per cent, and killing the economy totally. The truth is that, to get interest rate policy right, we have to keep inflation down and growth steady. That is the trick of economic policy. That is also why the Governor of the Bank of England has to write to the Chancellor explaining why inflation has fallen to below 1.5 per cent. Similar constraints have to be imposed on the utility regulator, to ensure that the regulator does not drive out equity capital in the provision of investment funds to electricity and gas. Our amendment would help to achieve that.
Our amendment in lieu is important and could do much to save the gas and electricity industries from the problems being faced in water. Without it, we run the risks associated with mutualisation and the effective renationalisation of those industries. I hope that the


Government will accept it at this late hour. However, I suspect that the words of the Prime Minister back in 1988, may prevail. He said:
We are proud that we took the—
electricity—
industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit.—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681–84.]
I trust that that is no longer the Government's policy, and that they will demonstrate their commitment to the private sector by accepting our amendment. However, if they are not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope very much that the House will vote to accept it.

Mr. David Wilshire: It might benefit the House if I were to point out that—although it is not, strictly speaking, a declarable interest—many of my constituents earn their living by working for the successors to British Gas. I approach the debate from that direction.
I also understand from listening to the speeches of other hon. Members that there is a general wish not to prolong matters too much. I shall attempt not to do that.
The Minister rightly said that Lords amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 17 were seeking simply to expand the statement that "so and so shall arise out of this part" to "so and so shall arise out of this part or the Act itself." I am not a lawyer or a parliamentary draftsman. However, I am puzzled about why, if the legislation provides that something shall arise out of the Act, it should also state that something shall arise out of one part of the Act. It seems to be an excessively belt-and-braces approach to say that something will arise from both the Act and a part of the Act. Surely to goodness we know that "this part" is a part of the Act itself. Why is the Minister so keen, at a very late stage in our consideration of the Bill, to urge us to support including repetition in the Bill? I should be grateful for some clarity on that point.
I am also concerned about Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If I heard the Minister correctly, the Government have made a concession. They initially preferred to have no reference in this part of the Bill to the long-term supply of energy. In a debate in the other place, they tried to prevent Parliament from saying that the long-term provision of energy matters sufficiently to be mentioned in the Bill. I suppose we should be grateful for the concession, but it is worth making the point that they tried to exclude any such reference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made it clear that, if we were the Government, we would not be starting from here, but the Government are starting from here and have decided to overturn the existing arrangements for the regulator and introduce new requirements. If they are determined to do that, they have the majority, and no doubt they will use it. It is extraordinary in those circumstances to resist any reference to the long-term supply of energy for the British people.
In the absence of a realistic justification, that seems to reveal the Government's hidden agenda and to show that their real focus is not on the consumer's interests, as they claim. It suggests that, if they are not interested in the long-term supply, they are really only interested in control and regulation. That reveals their prejudice.
The Government see that we have successful businesses, following the Conservative Government's privatisation of the industry. We are being asked to approve legislation that is aimed, as is always the case with the Labour party, at wrecking a successful business. The Government cannot tolerate financial success or bring themselves to understand that through such success comes prosperity and the underpinning of long-term viability for all sorts of enterprises.
The Government are now conceding the point, presumably because they want to get away by 7 o'clock, and thereby conceding that they ought to consider other factors rather than wrecking successful businesses out of spite and prejudice. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how I am wrong.

Mr. Stunell: The debate seems to be rather wide-ranging, but the amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate go to the heart of some of the Bill's aims. I want to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in support of the amendments in lieu. Neither the Lords amendments nor the amendments in lieu make any significant difference to the impact of the Bill, but it is legitimate to discuss them.
I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points about the construction and history of the Bill and the disappointing way in which it has proceeded. It was cut in half and had 600 amendments added in Committee, we now have the Lords amendments, and we can see further difficulties lying ahead. There are also some missed opportunities. Some of them are the result of an absence rather than an excess of regulation. In Committee and elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to try to give the regulating authorities greater power and influence, particularly in the area of environmental control.
I want to tackle the central argument that the hon. Gentleman deployed. The energy supply industry in the United Kingdom has never been completely deregulated and left to the mercies of unregulated rampant market forces. The Conservative Government never thought that that was an option and it is certainly not one for the future. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be absolutely bonkers to lift all regulation except that relating to competition. It would be particularly bonkers for hon. Members representing rural constituencies. If one simply left competition to run unhindered, rural consumers would pay higher prices than urban consumers because the cost of supplying them would be greater.
5.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman may contradict me, but I do not believe for a moment that he has brought to the House a new Conservative policy on energy supply which is that rural consumers should pay the full price for the product and therefore pay more. Nor do I believe that he is in favour of dismantling the regulatory framework relating to the security or safety of supply. In some respects, it is absolutely transparent that the quick soundbite of getting rid of all regulation except that relating to competition is bonkers.

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands my point. The regulator was put in place at


the time of privatisation. There were rules about security of supply and so on before the regulator was appointed. I am talking about restoring the role of the regulator to that of an economic regulator in order to mimic competition. When competition is fully established, that role would be withdrawn from the regulator. However, all the other rules and regulations about safety and security of supply that existed before privatisation would continue.

Mr. Stunell: What we have established from that intervention is that I am correct: the hon. Gentleman does not seek the dismantling of the regulatory regime. When an industry is privatised, the constraints provided by state ownership are withdrawn and if one does not substitute a regulatory framework rural consumers will pay more, safety corners will be cut, long-term investment will go out of the window and security of supply will become a redundant issue. Quite clearly, the Conservatives do not mean what the soundbite suggests.
Let me take the argument a little further because the Utilities Bill addresses some of the issues of social welfare. I give the Minister credit for those provisions, but the Bill is still slack on environmental control. The Minister has missed some opportunities and this group of Lords amendments does not restore the regulatory framework to the extent that I would like. I do not know whether the Conservatives will press the matter to a vote, but the view of the Liberal Democrats is not that we should have excessive regulation, but that we should have regulation which benefits and protects the consumer. That is why we need regulations on safety and supply and the social provision of energy, and that is why we believe that there should be additional regulation relating to the environment.

Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If those issues are so important, will he tell the House why his party has not tabled amendments enabling the House to discuss them?

Mr. Stunell: We have tabled a string of amendments on which I shall raise some of those issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alleged that somehow the Bill was leading inexorably to a secret renationalisation of the energy companies in the United Kingdom. That is quite amusing given that the profit made from the electricity lighting the lamps in the Chamber is going to a state company—but it happens to be the French state electricity company. That is the outcome of the privatisation process of which the hon. Gentleman is so proud.

Dr. Howells: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the previous Government had been a bit more rigorous and shown more guts in taking on other member states to break up the monopoly markets that still exist in some parts of the European Union, we might not have been in this situation.

Mr. Stunell: I warn the Minister that the lights might go off if we have any more remarks like that.
The much-vaunted privatisation of this country's power companies has resulted in state enterprises elsewhere moving in on our territory. A completely unregulated

market in this country would mean that that would happen more often. I will be delighted to vote against the amendment if it is pressed.

Mr. Forth: I want to register my mild protest at amendment No. 13, which strikes me as the epitome of guff. It looks innocuous enough, and who would argue with the intention to secure a diverse and long-term energy supply? However, propositions that arouse no argument are usually vacuous and meaningless. I suspect that this one is too.
The amendment appears to encourage the development of solar energy, and wind and wave-generated energy. It may also aim to encourage the development of coal as a source of gas, in competition with or to complement natural gas. That is all very well, but is not that at odds with some of the environmental aims espoused by the same people who produced this nonsensical amendment?
The amendment does not make clear whether the achievement of a
diverse and viable long-term energy supply
would be in conflict with environmental aims, and so it does not take us much further forward. I believe that Bills should not contain meaningless terms. The amendment is therefore to be resisted.

Mrs. Liddell: I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. The amendment was introduced by the Opposition in the Lords. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was made by my noble Friend Lord McIntosh but, in the spirit of co-operation that we have shown throughout deliberations on the Bill, the Government are willing to accept the amendment. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's words will be heard by his noble Friends in another place.

Mr. Forth: I am advised that Liberal Democrat peers in another place tabled the amendment. They are not part of the official Opposition: in fact, they usually do not oppose the Government at all.
Even so, I am not impressed with what the Minister just said. It is astonishing that she should have told the House that the spirit of compromise—with which I rarely agree anyway—has led her to agree to the inclusion in the Bill of meaningless verbiage. That will hasten the Bill's progress to the statute book, but it is astonishing and disgraceful for her to admit that she is willing to accept words that she has said that she opposes. It reinforces my determination to vote against the amendment, if the opportunity so to do arises.

Sir Michael Spicer: I shall not repeat my Second Reading speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was kind enough to quote at length. However, I want to put it firmly on record that I believe that the regulatory system amounts to socialism on the sly. It has nothing to do with benefits for the industry, and everything to do with income distribution and the Government's political objectives.
If that were not so, the Government would have established a totally different trading system, which did not depend on the big companies being able to sew up the contract market. Different arrangements would not have created so much worry among smaller market players,


and no referrals to the Competition Commission would have been made. The whole matter would have been dealt with in a totally different way. That needs to be put on the record.
This is not an isolated case—it is part of a process that goes right across the regulatory board. Every regulatory regime that the Government are tampering with is putting economic and competition considerations below the wider political considerations. The Government are proactive in this respect, and have that objective in mind. There is no disguise. It is apparent in all the bodies—the Financial Services Authority now has social banking, and integrated transport systems are an objective.
In every regulatory regime, the political objectives are more important that the economic objectives. I am very glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that when we come into office, we will strip all this bare again and start off with a proper regime that puts competition, the marketplace and genuine economic objectives at the forefront. It will not do what politicians may seek to do, albeit through different means. Income distribution should not be made through a regulatory process that pretends to be of economic benefit to the country.

Mrs. Liddell: Well, the splits have been exposed tonight all right. We have seen splits between the official Opposition in this place and the official Opposition in another place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) claimed that amendment No. 13 was defective and that he would oppose it, yet his colleagues in another place supported it. The reason that the Government are accepting it is quite simple: it adds very little to the Bill, but it is better that people get the benefits of the Utilities Bill sooner rather than later.
We also saw a split between those on the Front and Back Benches. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) complained about new electricity trading arrangements, yet only a couple of weeks ago Baroness Buscombe said:
we welcome the merging of the electricity and gas regulators…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2000; Vol. 612, c.1143.]
She also said that they supported the new electricity trading arrangements. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made exactly the same point. It is always a pleasure when the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box; it is like listening to the speech of an old friend, because we hear it so often.
We will make sure that we take careful note of what Conservative Members have said tonight—it will be very useful in the forthcoming election. Conservative Members put in place the system of privatisation that was deliberately opposed to the interests of the consumer. We will bear that in mind.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton complained about telecommunications and water being taken out of the Bill. When he reads his speeches, he should read all of his speeches. I draw to his attention his remarks that the Government would have the support of the Opposition if telecommunications were to be removed from the Bill, when he said:
That removal could be carried out in as swift and easy a manner as the Minister wished.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 February 2000; c. 184.]
Despite the fact that this debate has sounded like a Third Reading debate, it was not—it was actually a debate on the Opposition's amendments (a) to Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 15. The Opposition's amendments are technically deficient. Under existing legislation, the regulator and the Secretary of State are under a primary duty to secure that licence holders are able to finance certain of their activities. That is why we are concerned that this and other aspects of existing legislation has led to the interests of consumers being subordinated to those of shareholders. That is why the Bill puts the consumer first. However, it remains important that licence holders are able to finance their activities. That is why the Bill replaces the existing finance duty as an aspect of the primary consumer duty. A balance must be struck between the consumer and the shareholder. That is why the finance duty has been incorporated as an aspect of the interests of consumers.
The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would add nothing to the present wording of clauses 9 and 13. They simply introduce a reference to securing finance and to capital investment required. However, it is already clear that the duty in the provisions extends to the securing of finance. The licence holder's provision could not be included could it not secure that finance. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has used this as an opportunity to rehearse the arguments that he has used in the past.
6 pm
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asks why we are using expressions like
arising out of this part".
We are referring to the wording of the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
I urge the House to support the amendments tabled by the Government which make sensible improvements to the Bill and take into account the concerns of all involved.

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 116.

Division No. 296]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allan, Richard
Buck, Ms Karen


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ashton, Joe
Cabom, Rt Hon Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies


Austin, John
(NE File)


Banks, Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barren, Kevin
Caplin, Ivor


Beard, Nigel
Casale, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caton, Martin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda


Best, Harold
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clelland, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Clwyd, Ann


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Coaker, Vemon






Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, lain
Hutton, John


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkins, Brian


Corston, Jean
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cox, Tom
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Ms Jenny


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Cummings, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Dawson, Hilton
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Leslie, Christopher


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McAvoy, Thomas


Flint, Caroline
McCabe, Steve


Follett, Barbara
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Foster, Don (Bath)
(Makerfield)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McGuire, Mrs Anne


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall s)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Martlew, Eric


Gunnell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meale, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Merron, Gillian


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moore, Michael


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Moriey, Elliot


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
(B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)





Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Öpik, Lembit
Steinberg, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Stunell, Andrew


Pollard, Kerry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pope, Greg
(Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Quinn, Lawrie
Touhig, Don


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rogers, Allan
Tyler, Paul


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sawford, Phil
(Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Clive Betts and


Spellar, John
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Flight, Howard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bercow, John
Fraser, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Blunt, Crispin
Gamier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brady, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gray, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Green, Damian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hague, Rt Hon William


(Chipping Bamet)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clappison, James
Hammond, Philip


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Hawkins, Nick


(Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Horam, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard






Johnson Smith,
Pickles, Eric


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior, David


Key, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Robathan, Andrew


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
St Aubyn, Nick


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard


Lansley, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Loughton, Tim
Swayne, Desmond


Luff, Peter
Syms, Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Madel, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Major, Rt Hon
JohnWaterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wilkinson, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Willetts, David


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norman, Archie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. John Randall and


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 28

EXEMPTIONS FROM ELECTRICITY LICENSING

Lords amendment: No. 55, in page 24, line 3, leave out
(", after consultation with the Authority,").

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 69, 102 to 106, 108 to 118, 121 to 124, 164, 165, 167, 169 to 171, 176, 177, 179, 182, 188, 198, 199, 204, 213 to 216, 218, 223, 224, 230, 231, 236 and 244.

Mrs. Liddell: In an attempt to assist the House, I will not speak at length on all those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 121 and 213 introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to go out to consultation before granting an exemption under clauses 28 or 85. They require him to produce a notice that sets out the exemption that he proposes to make, together with the reasons why he proposes to do so. A copy of the notice should be served on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. It should be published so as to bring it to the attention of those likely to be affected by the exemption, so that those who wish to make representations have a minimum of 28 days in which to do so.
In the context of the new obligation to consult, amendments Nos. 67, 68, 122 and 123 remove the granting of exemptions from the list of decisions that triggers the duty to give reasons under clauses 41 and 86.
6.15 pm
That will avoid setting an unfortunate precedent, as exemptions are granted by statutory instrument and it is not usual practice to require the giving of reasons for the making of legislation. This can be distinguished, however, from the giving of reasons for a proposal to grant exemptions, as required by the new consultation procedure.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 123 have two further effects. First, in the context of the general requirement introduced for the first time by clauses 41 and 86 to publish reasons for key decisions, they clarify the matters that the authority or the Secretary of State should consider excluding when publishing those reasons. The amendments require that matters should relate
to the affairs of a particular individual or body of persons
before the requirement to consider exclusion is triggered.
Secondly, they ensure that the subsection (5) exception to the duty to give reasons—a decision subject to a disapplication direction by the Secretary of State—applies whether the decision itself was taken by the authority or by the Secretary of State.
Taken together, this package of amendments represents a strengthening of the provisions of the Bill. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Forth: I want to say a few words about three of the amendments. The first is amendment No. 56. The Minister said that it referred to the Secretary of State giving notice of
those likely to be affected.
Although that phrase does not appear in the amendment, it requires some explanation. How does the Minister imagine that the Secretary of State will determine those "likely to be affected"? The phrase is so wide and loose that it could mean a great deal or not much at all. As the matter is so important, I should be comforted if she told us a little more about what she thinks those words mean.
The amendment states:
Before making an order … the Secretary of State shall give notice … and shall consider any representations which are duly made in respect of the proposals and not withdrawn.
That might give comfort to some people, but does it take us much further? Of course, one might say that a sensible and responsible Secretary of State—I exclude the present incumbent—would naturally consider any representations; but how much protection does the provision really give? What does "shall consider" mean? Does it mean "glance at", "give a quick look at", "momentarily pause while officials give a summary of? It could mean almost anything.

Mr. John Bercow: Ponder?

Mr. Forth: I would not go that far. I do not think that any pondering will be done.
Will the Minister tell us to what extent the Secretary of State will give consideration under that provision? What effect is that likely to have on the view that the Secretary of State will take?
Amendment No. 66 contains the potential for much more substantial problems. I could dwell on them at some length, but I sense that my colleagues want to make progress, so I shall mention them only briefly. The amendment states that
where, in consequence of a reference under section 12(1 A), the Commission modifies under subsection (4)(b) the standard conditions of licences of any type, the Authority may make such incidental and consequential modifications as it considers necessary or expedient.
Two bodies will be acting simultaneously on much the same matters. It is possible for the Competition Commission to modify the standard conditions of licences—an important enough function—while the authority may make
such incidental and consequential modifications as it considers necessary.
The questions that I want to ask the Minister are: if the commission and the authority were to be in conflict over that sort of matter, (a) who would take primacy or priority and/or (b), what kind of conciliation process might be envisaged; and when the authority is making incidental and consequential modifications, is it at the sole discretion of the authority to determine what is incidental or consequential? If the amendment allows only incidental or consequential modifications to be made, that implies that something that is beyond the incidental or consequential would be beyond the powers of the authority in terms of the amendment. Is it solely the judgment of the authority as to what falls into that category?
All I want to say about Lords amendment No. 204 is: is it not astonishing that at this stage we have before us, presumably in all seriousness and with a straight face, four pages of very important provisions, entitled "Secretary of State's licensing schemes" and going into very considerable detail? I could detain the House, if I was doing my job properly, and go through this in very great detail.

Mr. Bercow: Go on

Mr. Forth: I will not on this occasion; I should probably feel a bit guilty as a result. I just want to obtain the Minister's view as to how proper it is, at this stage of the legislative process, to introduce four pages of very detailed provisions without so much as an explanation or a "by your leave" or anything of the kind. Therefore I want to give the Minister the opportunity to tell us something more about the four pages of Lords amendment No. 204 and what it does or does not do, in addition to answering the more detailed questions that I have asked her about Lords amendments Nos. 56 and 66.

Mrs. Liddell: I shall deal with Lords amendment No. 204 first, because there is quite a simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am sorry that he does not want to go into greater detail; it would suit me and other Labour Members to have an opportunity for a fuller debate on the subject. We enjoyed debating it in Committee—again, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to join us at that stage.
Lords amendment No. 204 replaces the existing part I of schedule 7; that is why it is so long. It provides for the Secretary of State to make licensing schemes in order to

ensure continuity of licensing for all those who hold gas and electricity licences at the time the licensing provisions of the Bill come into force. That is to ensure that, in the transition, everything can pass over.
Licensing schemes will be used to ensure smooth transition from existing licence types in electricity to new licence types, and to incorporate the new standard condition of licences in all existing electricity and gas licences. Therefore, in effect, this is a transitional arrangement to ensure that there is no dislocation.
In relation to Lords amendment No. 56, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asks who would be likely to be affected. Generally, the Secretary of State would seek as wide a consultation as necessary. In a case that was essentially local, that might reasonably be restricted to a local consultation. In larger cases, it may be sensible to issue a press notice or to publish the Department's proposals on its website. The phrase used is common in legislation; it allows the precise scope of consultation to be adapted to the circumstances of the case.
The right hon. Gentleman also asks about representations not withdrawn, and how much protection is given. Representations will have to be properly considered. In the absence of a proper consultation, there will have been a procedural irregularity, which of course is challengeable in the courts.
On Lords amendment No. 66, on the modification of licences, if the commission and the authority are in conflict, the commission takes primacy. The authority's incidental and consequential amendments can only be those that flow from the commission's modifications. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 69 agreed to.

Clause 45

POWER TO REQUIRE SECURITY

Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 49, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
("(b) a person ("the initial contributor") has made a payment to the distributor in respect of those expenses, the line or plant having been provided for the purpose of making a connection to any premises or distribution system as required by that person."").

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 71, 101, 119, 120 and amendment (a) thereto, Nos. 159, 160, 161 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 162, 163, 166, 172, 181, 184, 185, 189, 190, 192 to 196, 200, 202, 203, 205, 217, 229, 232, 233, 240, 242 and 243.

Dr. Howells: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on getting every one right.

Mr. Wilshire: More than can be said for you.

Dr. Howells: Well said.
All the amendments are consequential on the decision to separate electricity supply and distribution. They make mainly minor adjustments to passages of the Bill dealing with connections, uniform prices in Scotland, pre-payment meter provisions, deemed contracts, determination of disputes arising from the duty to connect, billing disputes, standards of performance, transfer schemes, transitional arrangements for former tariff customers and miscellaneous provisions.
I understand that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) wishes to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 120 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 161, which the Government will resist.

Mr. Gibb: Late in the Committee stage, among the many hundreds of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, the Government tabled a particularly unpleasant and authoritarian amendment to what is now schedule 4 and clause 83. The new measure gives gas and electricity suppliers the right to enter someone's property and home to install a pre-payment meter against their wishes.
Under the existing law, if customers fail to pay their bill and become problem customers they have a choice, if the supplier company finds it appropriate, between disconnection and accepting a pre-payment meter. If customers refuse to accept the installation of a pre-payment meter, they face disconnection. However, it remains their choice; a matter for them.
The new provisions, introduced late in the day by the Government, give the electricity and gas supplier the power to enter premises by force to install a pre-payment meter. That is an unacceptable power for one person to have over another, except in exceptional circumstances in which safety is an issue. It certainly should not be a power over future payments.
Aside from the issue of forced entry, pre-payment meters are extremely expensive for the customer. The Government's Green Paper illustrated how expensive they are. On page 34, it says:
A recent Offer study found that these generally range from approximately £9.50 to £27.50 per annum, although one company had a negative charge of around £4.50. The median surcharge is between £14 and £15 per annum.
So the poorest customers pay the highest charges. The Government, who claim to be on the side of the fuel poor, are giving more powers to suppliers to enable them to install pre-payment meters.
Pre-payment meters hark back to the dark days when the utilities were state-run monopolies—inefficient, unresponsive, uninnovative monoliths—that tried to force people to pay huge cash deposits simply to become one of their customers. I remember from my student days being forced to pay a £100 deposit before I could be supplied with electricity. Those days, thankfully, have gone and so too should pre-payment meters.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, Conservative Members have tried to put over the important principle that private sector competition in the utilities has led to falling prices—a 30 per cent, fall in real terms. That has done more to help the fuel poor with their bills than any mountain of regulations that the Government are intent on creating. That 30 per cent, cut would not have happened had Labour had its way in 1986 and 1988, when it opposed the privatisation. It is a result of privatisation that the proportion of homes with central heating has risen enormously since 1986.
6.30 pm
The truth is—a truth that those with a left-wing socialist approach still cannot bring themselves to accept despite all the evidence around them—that moving the gas and electricity industries into the private sector and opening up the markets to competition has delivered, and will go on delivering, huge benefits to society and to the least well-off in particular. The Government claim that the market and competition will not serve the least profitable customers, such as the poor or the elderly, but we have tried to explain that a fiercely competitive market with suppliers desperate for new customers and desperate to keep existing customers will develop new innovative products to enable companies to attract every last customer, including poor payers.
The Government said that that was nonsense and that massive intervention was needed. I am afraid that, yet again, the Government were wrong. When the industries were privatised, the Conservative Government put in place provisions for the protection of the elderly, the sick, the disabled and those living in rural areas as part and parcel of the process of mimicking competition. When competition arrives, that protection is not necessary.
For example, PowerGen has entered into an arrangement with Age Concern to provide a special lower-priced package for the elderly. The scheme is called "Better Deals for all Concerned" and it offers lower standing charges, cold weather rebates, free carbon monoxide detectors, free early warning hypothermia thermometers and free energy efficiency advice. That is just the start; there will be many such schemes in due course provided that the Government do not drive out the entrepreneurial spirit and capital from the industries.
Another example is the stay warm scheme introduced by TXU, the owners of Eastern Energy, in May this year. The Minister was at the launch of the scheme, which is specifically for households on low incomes, such as those on state benefit, the disabled, the long-term sick and the elderly. It provides fixed payments for unlimited use of gas and electricity, and those payments are £120 a year less than those groups would have had to pay before. It is an extremely innovative scheme and way of enabling previously unprofitable customers to become highly viable for the industry. For the company, the scheme cuts down on meter readings—it carries out just one meter reading a year—and on the cost of dealing with debt problems. For the consumer, it results in lower bills.
The scheme does away with the need for pre-payment meters and it could have never emanated from the industry had it remained under state control. It can not survive in the long run if the Government over-regulate the industry. It has happened only because of competition.
The new powers to enter premises to install old-fashioned, unfair, highly expensive pre-payment meters should not have been introduced by the Government. The amendment would add a safeguard to that power so that it can be exercised only if the customer has agreed in writing to have a prepayment meter installed. Competition and enterprise—and not draconian rights-of-entry powers—are the solution to helping the poor and to heating their homes. I urge the Government, at this late stage, to think again about this issue.

Mr. Wilshire: On amendment No. 71, it seems that we are being asked to approve a draconian power. Clause 46(21)(b) refers to
any terms restricting any liability of the distributor for—
this is the important point—
economic loss resulting from negligence which it is reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to be required to accept.
Action must be taken in such circumstances and I do not necessarily disagree with that.
However, the other place has said that it is a technical provision. Therefore, it has asked us to approve the removal of all the references to restricting liability, economic loss and negligence. It ask us to accept an amendment in which any terms can be imposed that are
reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to be required to accept.
There is no reference to economic matters, negligence or loss; the amendment refers only to any terms that are reasonable in all the circumstances. We are back to the old chestnut—defining what on earth is reasonable—and this provision relates not merely to some circumstances, but to all circumstances.
The amendment is so draconian as to be worthy of comment from the Minister. He clearly thinks that it does not matter and that he can give people the power to do anything that they like and to impose any terms they like in any circumstances they like. We were offered no explanation whatsoever, and I should be grateful for one.

Dr. Howells: I shall try to give the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) an explanation. Ostensibly he is right, and the amendment provides a very wide power, but it must be borne in mind that the provision will come within the scope of section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Bill. Under that section, in the event of a dispute about the terms offered by a distributor for making and maintaining a connection, either party may refer the matter to the authority for determination. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will view that as the safeguard that he is seeking. In the end, the question of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for a person to be required to accept a particular term is likely to become a matter for determination by the authority, especially where the term is novel or unusually burdensome.
I turn now to amendment (a) to amendment No. 120 and amendment (a) to amendment No. 161, in the name of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I agree entirely that it is fierce, fair competition that brings all consumers the greatest benefits, and I certainly do not believe that increased state intervention is the way to bring down electricity or gas prices. I agree also that excellent schemes are offered by companies such as PowerGen, which display a great regard for corporate responsibility. Long may that thrive—I am certainly doing all that I can to encourage it. However, we will resist the amendments.
The amendments provide that a customer in debt to his supplier could not be required to accept the installation of a pre-payment meter in place of his existing meter. The supply company would be able to install a pre-payment meter in such circumstances only if the customer had agreed to it in writing. That is strange because it would mean that the customer who refused or, worse, forgot—many of us have forgotten to send our returns to such

companies as quickly as we should have done—would be almost certain to have his supply disconnected unless he agreed in writing to accept a pre-payment meter.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot intend to increase the number of disconnections that arise from non-payment of gas and electricity bills; but by seriously weakening suppliers' powers to replace credit meters with pre-payment meters when a customer is behind with payments, the amendments would achieve exactly that. I am sure that he is aware that it costs a great deal more to be reconnected than to come to an arrangement for the installation of a pre-payment meter.

Mr. Gibb: Essentially, the amendment would simply change the law back to what it was before the Bill was introduced so that suppliers would have no right to enter people's premises to install a pre-payment meter. Despite that, disconnections have fallen over the past few years.

Dr. Howells: They have fallen over the past year by about 25 per cent., and I hope that they will continue to fall. However, it is important to remember that a supplier has to get a warrant before he can force entry to install a meter or to disconnect the supply. The existence of a power of entry to install a pre-payment meter does not necessarily mean that companies will use it. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the innovative approach of some companies and the way in which they have sought to get around the problem.

Mr. Wilshire: It sounds to me as though the Minister objects to the fact that somebody has to get a warrant before they force entry. Is that what he is saying?

Dr. Howells: I am not suggesting that at all. It is important that a company should get a warrant before it enters somebody's home.

Mr. David Winnick: Before an application for entry is made—as my hon. Friend has explained, a warrant will be required—surely all the circumstances will be taken into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if, as a result of disconnection, a household was left with no supply whatever? Children may be involved and the supply may be disconnected as a result of the parents' irresponsibility. There is therefore a case for ensuring that the household has some fuel connection—to either electricity or gas.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has expressed the essence of this provision beautifully. It is important that we do not have disconnections, but have pre-payment meters fitted wherever possible.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will be interested to learn that one major gas supply company has told Ofgem that it estimates that some 80 per cent, of gas supply disconnections occur because the company cannot illicit a response from defaulting customers, despite oft repeated attempts to do so. How are such people to be persuaded to avoid disconnection by being made to write to their suppliers agreeing to the installation of a pre-payment meter, when they do not communicate in the first place?

Mr. Gibb: Those people are exercising their perfect right to refuse a gas company entry, and I believe that


they should continue to have that right. The Bill removes people's right to refuse gas companies entry to their house to install meters.

Dr. Howells: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill contains a great many safeguards. We have confidence in the system. We certainly believe that it is a far better way to proceed than making children, innocent of the shortcomings of their parents, endure the cold, and then subjecting their parents to a hefty reconnection charge. We shall therefore resist the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 71 agreed to.

Clause 56

INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS

Lords amendment: No. 72, in page 54, line 42, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.").

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 94, 98 to 100, 125, 138 to 140, 142, 173, 175, 186, 191, 222 and 238.

Dr. Howells: The amendments deal with the standards of performance and aspects of consultation on renewables and energy efficiency targets, including some of the implications of the trading of obligations between gas and electricity obligation holders, rather than simply gas obligation holders on the one hand and electricity obligation holders on the other.

Mr. Stunell: On the whole, I welcome the amendments. I wish to deal briefly with amendment No. 79, which requires any action by the Secretary of State in making an order to be preceded by consultation with renewable energy generators. I certainly welcome that, and regret that provisions on renewables are still missing from the Bill. We need more action to promote and support renewable generation, as well as simply consulting renewable energy generators before orders come into force.
Can the Minister update the House on the DTI's views about the banding of the renewables obligation and the approach that the Government are likely to take in regulating in support of the Bill? I understand that a meeting was held at the DTI yesterday to discuss the banding of technologies. It would be helpful for the House to know the outcome.
Is the Minister still as satisfied as Ministers have been in their public declarations in the past that the targets of achieving 5 per cent, of renewable electricity generation by 2003 and 10 per cent, by 2010 are still realistic and feasible? If the Minister is able to reassure us on those points, how would he refute the arguments put forward by those in the industry who believe that the targets are increasingly unrealisable and unrealistic?
6.45 pm
In supporting amendment No. 79 and agreeing on the need to include the renewable generators, will the Minister explain how he can reassure them that future investment will be worth while, that their product will be taken up in the market and that the Government's targets will be achieved? That is a vital part of the Government's longer-term policy to comply with the Kyoto agreement. There is definitely a gap in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will at least give a signal that further work will be done and further proposals will be put before the House.

Mr. Forth: We are now wading knee-deep in gobbledegook, especially with amendment No. 81.1 shall give the Minister the opportunity to tell us, succinctly and with his usual clarity, exactly what he thinks amendment No. 81 means. It looks like complete nonsense to me. I suspect that it is to do with environmental strutting and posturing. What it is supposed to achieve is beyond me, but it seems to sanction sleight of hand. If I were to believe in any of the Kyoto nonsense, I should be very suspicious because a provision such as amendment No. 81—if I even begin to understand it—seems to represent almost an invitation to fiddle the books and to pretend that we are doing all sorts of Kyoto things when we are doing nothing of the kind.
Amendment No. 81 is akin to the Government policy that, on the one hand, put additional taxes on vehicle fuel—which they claimed was an environmental measure—but, on the other, lowered taxes on domestic fuel consumption. They have never been able to explain the justification for that. I suspect that, if it means anything, amendment No. 81 comes into the same category.
I am worried that amendment No. 86 will undermine any viability that may have existed in the adjustments for inflation. As we know from recent examples such as pensions and so on, those adjustments can be of the greatest importance to people of all ages and categories. However, amendment No. 86 seems to provide almost unlimited scope to fiddle the books on inflation. It states:
for any such sum to be adjusted from time to time for inflation by a method specified in the order …
That is fair enough; one would expect such a provision, but it continues:
including such a scale or index or such data in a form not current when the order was made, but in a subsequent form attributable to revision or any other cause and taking effect afterwards…
I do not know what that is supposed to mean. I was just about following it until adjustments "by a method specified" were mentioned. That is fair enough, but it then took off into the stratosphere of completely blank cheques, allowing people to produce whatever figures they felt like producing
in a form not current when the order was made
and for any reason.
We are getting into some odd and difficult territory, but as usual in such circumstances, I rely on the Minister to step up to the Dispatch Box and, with great clarity and as succinctly as ever, to set right my anxieties about those matters and tell us exactly what he thinks amendment No. 81 means. When he says what he thinks, it becomes official and fixes matters. I have no doubt that he will tell


us equally succinctly about amendment No. 86 and explain the reason why my unhappiness about it is completely unfounded. I cannot wait.

Dr. Howells: I do not intend to make the right hon. Gentleman wait. May I deal first, however, with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? Taken together, the amendments that he has mentioned try, I suppose, to set out some of the thoughts of another place on where we have got to. For example, the comprehensive spending review was excellent for encouraging renewables. I was glad to see that. A consultation will be conducted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the banding of technologies. It is far too early to predict the outcome of that consultation, but it is important.

Mr. Stunell: I am encouraged by the fact that there is to be a consultation and that prediction is too early, but, before the door is shut firmly, is the Minister indicating that the door is now at least a little open?

Dr. Howells: On the Government side, we are always receptive to constructive arguments and to imaginative approaches to what are important issues.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were still on line for 5 per cent. It is a big challenge—I give him that—but it is do-able and the CSR will help a great deal. Essentially, we are trying to move the renewables from the margins to the centre of the market. That must be a good thing.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wanted to know more about amendment No. 81. It says that an order may provide that, to a specified level, under-achievement or over-achievement in a particular period of a supplier's obligation may be carried forward into a subsequent period—so-called banking and borrowing. I do not think that it is a fiddle. He will recognise that, sometimes, for example, a power station may be down for a time—an efficient one that does not spew out various pollutants into the air. The company that owns that power station may need a bit of time, going into the following year, to make up for the period when the power station was down, so the measure allows a bit of leeway at the end of the year. However, he is right to highlight the point because it must not be a big percentage of the obligation that the suppliers have. I hope that my saying that from the Dispatch Box will reinforce what he said—that when the Minister says something, it does matter.

Mr. Forth: When this Minister says something, it always matters. Therefore, I want to press him a little on two things. He has just touched on one of them. Is he satisfied that there does not appear to be any limit on either the percentage—therefore, that leaves it very open ended—or on the period? I am prepared to accept what he says about the power station example over a limited time, but the amendment, as I read it, appears to allow the possibility of such movements over almost any time. That does begin to look like fiddling.

Dr. Howells: Clearly, strict guidelines and time limits, where necessary, must be imposed by the authority.

There is no question about that. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, but I am sure that he will agree that there must be some flexibility for companies—not too much; I agree about that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about amendments Nos. 85 and 86. Amendments Nos. 80 to 94 are pretty minor. They do not make substantive changes to the renewables power in the Bill, but make some technical adjustments and enable the provision to be more effectively applied.
On the specific measure that the right hon. Gentleman asked about, it provides that a different buy-out price may be set for different periods within the overall period of renewables order under clause 61, and that the buy-out price may be adjusted for inflation, which is important in case, suddenly, his party were returned to power and it became rampant again. To return to his earlier point, percentages and periods will be set in the statutory instrument.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

LICENCE ENFORCEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 55, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder under subsection (1) where it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.")

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, 75 and amendment (b) thereto, and 76 to 78, 126 and 127, amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, and 128, amendment (b) thereto and 129 to 131, 183, 201, 219, 220 and 237.

Mrs. Liddell: Lords amendments Nos. 73 and 126 insert into the financial penalties provisions protection against double jeopardy in regard to the Competition Act 1998. They follow closely the terms of the protection against double jeopardy that already applies to licence enforcement orders in the utility statutes. They help to achieve consistency between the provisions inserted by this Bill in both the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989, and provisions that already exist. They also ensure that there is clarity on the interaction between licence enforcement provisions and Competition Act enforcement provisions.
Lords amendments Nos. 74 and 127 respond to concerns raised throughout the Bill's passage about the lack of a specific upper limit on financial penalties. The principal limit on the level of financial penalties remains the requirement for a penalty to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. We have had lengthy discussions in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the definition of "reasonable". The amendments, however, give licence holders extra comfort, in that they impose an upper limit on the amount of any financial penalty that can be imposed. That limit is 10 per cent, of the licence holder's turnover. Detailed provisions—for example, the definition of turnover—will be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution.
Lords amendments Nos. 76 and 129 relate to the 12-month time limit applying to the imposition of a financial penalty in cases in which there has been a contravention of an obligation, and no enforcement order has been made. If the amendments are accepted, no penalty may be imposed in respect of such a contravention unless, within 12 months of that contravention, the authority has issued either a penalty notice or a notice under section 28(2) of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 38(1) of the Gas Act 1986, as amended, seeking information for the purpose of its functions in relation to the imposition of financial penalties. When the authority issues a notice under either the Electricity Act or the Gas Act, no further time limits will apply to the imposition of a penalty.
The amendments will ensure that the authority has enough time to investigate alleged contraventions and to decide whether to impose a penalty. The authority will be able to determine the amount of any such penalty, particularly in large, complex cases in which it may have difficulty in obtaining information from the licence holder, or licence holders, concerned. That will mean that legitimate investigations of alleged contraventions will not run out of time as a result of licence holders taking too long in supplying the authority with information. That could well happen in the case of companies that did not wish to comply with licence requirements. The amendments remove any incentive for foot-dragging.
Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 130 are consequential on Lords amendments Nos. 76 and 129. Lords amendments Nos. 78 and 131 apply to the enforcement provisions of the Gas and Electricity Acts, as opposed to the proposed financial penalties provisions. Lords amendments Nos. 75, 128, 183, 201, 219, 220 and 237 are minor, technical and consequential amendments, replacing a reference to the commencement of a subsection with a more accurate reference to the commencement of a section of the Utilities Act 2000.
The Opposition have tabled some amendments—
It being Seven o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) and Order of 25th October 1999,
That, at this day's sitting, the Utilities Bill and the Postal Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mrs. Liddell: The Government will resist the amendments that the Opposition have tabled to this group of Lords amendments. I shall speak to those amendments in due course.

Mr. Gibb: We have argued long and hard—on Second Reading and in Committee, as well as in the other place—for the Government to introduce a cap on the potential penalty and fines that the regulator can impose on the utility companies for failing to comply with licence conditions or breaching standards of performance obligations.
Limitless fines were one of the major concerns that industry had with the Bill. The problem with a penalty regime without a ceiling on the upper fine is that it adds

to the level of regulatory risk faced by the utility companies, and that that increased risk leads to demands from the providers of capital for a higher rate of return in compensation. As the industries that we are discussing are highly capital intensive, such demands constitute a significant hit to the profit and loss account, which inevitably will be passed on to the consumer either in higher charges or in charges that are not as low as they would otherwise be.
We were delighted, therefore, that the Government eventually backed down and introduced, in the other place, a cap. However, that cap is still high. The fact is that a fine of 10 per cent, of turnover is still sufficiently high to wipe out completely any company that receives one. A significant portion of the regulatory risk will remain, notwithstanding the cap. Therefore, our amendment (a) seeks to reduce the 10 per cent, figure to 5 per cent.
Our next concern about the penalty regime hinges on the definition of turnover. The wording of the 10 per cent, turnover cap used in Lords amendment No. 74 echoes that used in the Competition Act 1998, which also has 10 per cent, turnover cap. However, we had to wait several months after implementation of that Act for "turnover" to be defined. When the statutory instrument defining turnover was finally produced, it added to rather than alleviated concerns.
In our amendments (b) and (c), we have sought to clarify the definition of turnover to avoid the same problems in this legislation. That will at least save the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs the inconvenience of having to produce another statutory instrument, speaking to another Committee on statutory instruments—he and I have already met in several such Committees—and swotting up on his briefings.
Our amendments will also remove the uncertainty over whether "turnover" means only the company's turnover in the United Kingdom, or whether any turnover derived from abroad should also be included. The amendments make it clear that the turnover should be derived only from the United Kingdom.
Our amendments also deal with the sleight of hand that the Government have perpetrated in the 1998 Act. In that Act, as the Minister knows, the cap for fines was set at 10 per cent, of turnover. However, the definition of turnover in the subsequent statutory instrument—which I think that he introduced—was such that it could be applied to up to three years of turnover. Therefore, at a stroke, he changed the 10 per cent, limit to 30 per cent. That is not an acceptable approach under the 1998 Act, and it certainly should not be an acceptable approach in the Bill.
Our amendment (c) defines turnover as a period not exceeding 12 months, so that the maximum fine in the Bill will remain at 10 per cent, and not be tripled by means of a subsequent statutory instrument.
I am disappointed—the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will be pleased to hear—that the Government will resist our amendments. If they do, however, I shall try to persuade my colleagues to vote for them.

Mrs. Liddell: There we have it—soft on price fixers and soft on the causes of price fixing. [Interruption.] At this time of night, I always find it best to be catchy.
I resist these Opposition amendments to the Bill's financial penalty provisions. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 74 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 127 seek to replace the cap of 10 per cent, of turnover with a cap of 5 per cent, of turnover. The Government have been consistent on this point. We have always maintained that the primary constraint on the level of any financial penalty is the requirement for the penalty to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
We initially resisted the imposition of the cap on penalties on the ground that it was not strictly necessary, but we have also listened to the views of groups inside and outside the House and responded to the growing view that a limit would provide some comfort to companies without unduly constraining the authority's ability to protect consumers' interests.
Now that we have done that, the Opposition want to move the goalposts again. No one gains from that. The Government have already done everything that is necessary to respond to the concerns that have been put to us about these provisions. We have introduced a cap on penalties, as requested, analogous to that in the Competition Act 1998, which seemed to be the example that the Opposition referred to most often in Committee and elsewhere when pressing for a cap.
The only possible reason for wanting to introduce a lower cap is to protect companies from facing a penalty that would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case when they have committed a serious contravention. A cap of 5 per cent, of turnover would run that risk, and on that basis the Government cannot accept it.
Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 74 and amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 127 would insert provisions in the Bill to the effect that the definition of turnover used in relation to the cap on financial penalties shall be the UK turnover of the licence holder in the year preceding the imposition of the penalty.
The Lords amendment inserting a limit on financial penalties also states that detailed provisions in relation to the definition of turnover and other matters shall be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution. There will therefore be ample opportunity for Parliament to discuss the relevant provisions when the order is made. The definition that the Opposition amendments would insert would pre-empt the debate that will take place when the order is made. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 75 and amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 128 have been linked—very tenuously—to a part of the financial penalties provisions that prevents penalties from being applied retrospectively. The amendment tabled in another place was purely technical.
The amendments to the Lords amendments are an attempt to reintroduce a provision that penalties shall be limited to cases of recklessness and intent, similar to the Competition Act 1998 restriction to cases of negligence and intent. The Government have resisted amendments to that effect throughout the passage of the Bill, on the ground that the onus should be on companies to comply with their licence conditions and that such an amendment would work against the interests of consumers.
As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh explained in another place, there are valid precedents for our approach, such as the National Lottery Act 1998 and the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, which were introduced under the previous Administration. Those Acts provide for the relevant regulatory authority to impose financial penalties for contraventions of licence conditions. They do not provide get-out clauses for companies that breach their licences without negligence or intent. There are good reasons for the approach that the Government have adopted.
We hold to the view that the onus should be on the licence holder to maintain compliance, especially when the consumers concerned cannot move to another service provider, as is the case with the electricity transmission and distribution companies and the gas transporters.
The amendments to the Lords amendments ignore entirely the nature of the powers that we are providing. The authority will have a power, not a duty, to impose financial penalties. Any penalty that it imposes must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It seems most unlikely that any penalty that did not take account of best endeavours by a licence holder to remedy a contravention would be considered reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and any such penalty would without doubt be liable to challenge in the courts. Consumers none the less deserve proper protection, and the amendments do not help in that respect.
For all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot accept the Opposition's proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments to a vote but, if he does, I am afraid that we must oppose them.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 74, in page 56, line 39, at end insert—
("(6A) No penalty imposed by the Authority under this section may exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
(6B) An order under subsection (6A) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (c), leave out from "holder" to end and insert—
'the turnover being determined on the applicable turnover for the business year preceding the date when the infringement ended and shall in any case not exceed a period of 12 months'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 257.

Division No. 297]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Bercow, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Beresford, Sir Paul
(Chipping Bamet)


Blunt, Crispin
Clappison, James


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Boswell, Tim
(Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brady, Graham
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)






Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan Smith, lain
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gale, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gamier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prior, David


Gray, James
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hammond, Philip
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hayes, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heald, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


Horam, John
Syms, Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Tredinnick, David


Johnson Smith,
Trend, Michael


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Key, Robert
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waterson, Nigel


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wells, Bowen


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lait, Mrs Jaoqui
Whittingdale, John


Lansley, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Wilkinson, John


Letwin, Oliver
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Wilshire, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Loughton, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


McIntosh, Miss Anne
and


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Mr. John Randall


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allen, Graham
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burnett, John


Austin, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Banks, Tony
Cable, Dr Vincent


Barnes, Harry
Cabom, Rt Hon Richard


Barton, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beard, Nigel
Cann, Jamie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbmugh)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cawsey, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berrton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann





Coaker, Vemon
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Coleman, lain
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cooper, Yvette
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Corston, Jean
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cousins, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cox, Tom
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Khabra, Piara S


Darvill, Keith
Kidney, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Leslie, Christopher


Dawson, Hilton
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dismore, Andrew
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McCabe, Steve


Edwards, Huw
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ennis, Jeff
McDonnell, John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fisher, Mark
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McNuHy, Tony


Follett, Barbara
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marshall, David (SheWeston)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


George, Bruce (Walsali S)
Merron, Gillian


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gibson, Dr Ian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Moffatt, Laura


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Motley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Grogan, John
(B'ham Yardley)


Gunnell, John
Mountford, Kali


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Olner, Bill


Healey, John
Opik, Lembit


Hepburn, Stephen
Palmer, Dr Nick


Heppell, John
Pearson, Ian


Hesford, Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pollard, Kerry


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pond, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pope, Greg


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pound, Stephen


Howells, Dr Kim
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hurst, Alan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hutton, John
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Rt Hon Giles






Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Rapson, Syd
(Dewsbury)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Rendel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rogers, Allan
Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tyler, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Soley, Clive
Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woodward, Shaun


Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wyatt, Derek


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Noes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Don Touhig

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 74 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 75 to 94 agreed to.

Clause 67

HELP FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS OF ELECTRICITY CUSTOMERS

Lords amendment: No. 95, in page 66, line 35, leave out ("1989 Act") and insert ("Electricity Act 1989")

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 96 and 148.

Mrs. Liddell: These are technical amendments which are necessary to provide that clause 67 commences at Royal Assent. Clause 67 gives the Secretary of State

powers to change electricity licences to implement the new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales. Commencement at Royal Assent is essential so that the powers can be used in time to bring the new trading arrangements into effect in the autumn. The planned start date for the new arrangements is 21 November this year.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 143 agreed to.

Clause 103

TRANSFER TO AUTHORITY AND COUNCIL OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 144, in page 108, line 36, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1986") and insert
("which are defined in section 48 or 66 of the 1986 Act or used in Part I of that")

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 147 and 149.

Dr. Howells: Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 make the drafting of clause 103 slightly more transparent and user-friendly—and it needs it. The amendments assist the reader by inserting into the clause specific references to the interpretation sections in part I and part III of each of the existing Acts.
Amendment No. 146 has the effect that section 46 of the Gas Act 1986 applies to the Utilities Bill. This amendment is needed because the Bill itself does not contain any provisions as to the manner of such service.
Amendment No. 147 clarifies the scope of the Secretary of State's power under clause 106 to make transitional and consequential provisions concerned with the coming into force of this Bill. The amendment makes it clear that the power to modify any enactment for that purpose extends to Acts passed and subordinate legislation made in the present parliamentary Session. Amendment No. 149 makes provision that a commencement order made by the Secretary of State may contain transitional provisions and savings relating to the provisions being brought into force by the order.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Postal Services Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 33, 34, 124, 125, 149 and 154. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 4

PROVISION OF A POSTAL SERVICE: MEANING.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 33 and insert
("a service of conveying relevant postal packets from one place to another by post and the incidental services of receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering such packets")

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 30, 31, 44, 45, 49, 91, 92, 94, 101 and 126 to 132, No. 133 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 134 to 140.

Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments relates to the rights given to universal service providers in connection with the provision of the universal service.
Amendments Nos. 1, 30, 31, 44, 45, 91, 92 and 94 are drafting amendments, which deal with the definitions of postal services, postal operator, post office, universal postal service and related consequential amendments.

Mr. David Wilshire: The Minister referred to amendment No. 31. Will he explain why it is considered necessary to remove the word "transports" and insert "conveys", as I am struggling to understand why it is worth taking up the time of the House to make such a footling little pedantic change?

Mr. Johnson: I will do my best to explain when I get to that amendment.
The amendments narrow the definition of postal services, postal operator and post office to prevent catching persons or places only involved in the provision of services related to postal services, such as the sale of stamps at a newsagent or the sale of envelopes by a stationer. They also ensure that those related services are only caught if they are provided in conjunction with the conveying, receiving, sorting, collecting and delivering of relevant postal packets.
Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that it will be possible to identify a universal service provider or providers in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Bill in the event that the current requirement to notify the commission of their identity under the postal services directive lapses.
Amendment No. 101 is a minor, consequential amendment resulting from amendment No. 2 to the list of expressions in clause 1. Amendment No. 49 inserts a new

clause into the Bill, which replaces the provisions in the Post Office Act 1953, to enable a universal service provider to require the owner or operator of a ship or aircraft to carry mailbags in connection with the provision of the universal service. It also provides for the transport tribunal—or, where relevant, the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland—to decide the level of remuneration where the remuneration for providing such a service cannot be agreed.
The clause proposed updates the 1953 Act provisions so that they apply to universal service providers and apply only in those areas where such provision is still thought to be justified; for example, where ships and aircraft are operating to places not readily accessible by road. On some air and sea routes, there may be a single provider. Unless the prices charged to universal service providers are reasonable, the cost of delivering postal packets to remote areas will increase and could threaten the maintenance of the universal service at a uniform tariff.

Mr. Wilshire: On amendment No. 49, has the transport tribunal the power solely to deal with price, or can it deal with the length of time allowed for delivery? That is not a pedantic point: if there is no time limit, there will be problems, but a time limit would surely mean that passengers would have to be taken off transport in order to deliver the mail, which would be unfair.

Mr. Johnsonm: The tribunal's power relates only to price. The procedure is well tested and carries forward the provisions of the 1953 Act, with which there have been no such problems as those identified by the hon. Gentleman. We felt able to translate it to the Bill in its original form.

Mr. Michael Jack: Can the Minister satisfy my curiosity about what happens when one of the universal Post Office people is told that he cannot put his mailbags on some mode of transport? What mechanism exists to resolve such a dispute?

Mr. Johnson: The point of the clause is that such transportation providers cannot say no. That would affect the Post Office's ability to provide a universal service. This provision relates to the costs of the service. Transporting the mail will be a requirement of the Act.
Amendment No. 133 addresses the legal authority relating to the installation of post boxes and postal pouch boxes in the street, which is unclear in the current legislation. The amendment puts universal service providers on the same basis as other statutory undertakers in relation to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and reduces the unnecessary administrative burdens involved in installing postal apparatus.

Mr. Wilshire: Subsection (7) of amendment No. 133 states:
Sub-paragraph (1) does not free the universal service provider concerned from obtaining any other consent, licence or permission which may be required.
What does that mean when it comes to obtaining planning permission? The erection of a post box technically involves a structure. How will that be handled?

Mr. Johnson: At present, permission is not required for the construction of a pillar box, but is required for placing a post box in the street. The Bill will not change that.


We must ensure that delays are not caused in the installation of postal pouch boxes, which are important to ensure that letters are delivered on time. Pouch boxes are secure receptacles from which postmen and postwomen collect additional mail sacks without returning to the delivery office. That enables health and safety legislation to be observed as well as responding to increasing volumes of mail. The alternative would be to deliver extra sacks to postmen by van, which would be environmentally undesirable.
The other amendments are minor drafting amendments to the compulsory acquisition and other land provisions in schedules 5 and 6.

Mr. John Bercow: It is a pleasure to joust with the Minister this evening. First, I should explain my presence and the absence of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). Both my hon. Friends have been indisposed and have experienced hospital treatment. The House will be pleased to know that both are making a full and rapid recovery and will return to active service 'ere long.
I have been posted—if I may use that term without being accused of a pun—on a free one-day transfer to the shadow Trade and Industry Front-Bench team. I have discovered that it is en route to the shadow Home Office team shortly thereafter. I wondered why the Opposition Whip's Office chose me to deputise for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The only explanation at which I could arrive was that they were looking for someone of a similar size and shape to my hon. Friend. The House will understand, therefore, that necessarily there was in more ways than one a very short shortlist.
I have a simple query on Lords amendment No. 2 for the Minister, with which I feel sure he will be able to deal speedily. In what circumstances would the amendment apply? That is not entirely clear to me. The amendment specifies the circumstance in which there would be no "obligation to notify" the European Commission of the identity of the universal service provider. Although I read the amendment and re-read it, as I was duty to bound to do, it became none the clearer. However, with the great talents that the Minister brings to bear in debates in the House, I feel sure that he will be able to put my mind at rest and tell me that the amendment has a good purpose.
Briefly on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133, my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon flagged up this issue in another place some time ago. She took up the cudgels on the matter on 8 June—if I remember rightly, it was in an amendment No. 19. We are concerned about the power that exists under the amendment to alter the designation of a letter box or a universal postal service pouch box in a street.
Paragraph (2)(b) of Lords amendment No. 133 refers to
inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering or renewing such apparatus which has been so placed, changing its position or removing it.
We could legitimately debate a number of those matters, but my concern is the reference to the entitlement to alter. This is no trifling matter. I hope that the Minister will accept that many people in local communities—especially

in rural areas and small villages—can be considerably exercised about the location of post boxes and what they may in some cases consider to be any unjustified changes to them.

Mr. Jack: I am following my hon. Friend's argument keenly. Does the existing law as it applies to the Post Office, give the facility for moving, changing or altering, which are his causes of concern about these new universal providers?

Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has it right. Until now, I have not had a particular concern, but I am concerned in the context of the amendment. My right hon. Friend is a patient chap. If he will hold on a moment, he will find out why.
The reason for our concern is that the amendment did not occur to the Government at an early stage of the Bill; it made a late entrance. That prompts me to ask the Minister—although I have looked at the record, I cannot find it anywhere—when the idea occurred to Ministers, whom did they consult and why did they decide at such a late stage to insert so apparently substantial an amendment? I wait with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brown to learn the hon. Gentleman's response.

Mr. Alan Johnson: We are delighted to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the Opposition Front Bench. He has been recruited as a type of Christmas casual to the post office team in the shadow Department of Trade and Industry, while the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—who made important contributions to the Bill in Committee—are both indisposed. We wish them a speedy recovery. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham does not catch whatever is going around the Opposition DTI team.

Mr. Bercow: I would not want there to be any confusion, so I should explain that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who is still in considerable pain—although making a good recovery—is suffering that pain because he fell off his horse.

Mr. Johnson: I hear that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was trying to use his mobile phone at the same time, but that is probably a vicious rumour.
I was asked about the reference to determining universal service providers. That attaches to a European directive whose life itself stretches until 2004. It is almost inconceivable that there will not be a replacement provision in that directive after 2004. However, we need to be wary and to ensure that, if that European provision should be subsumed or disappear, there will be provision in the Bill so that universal service providers can be properly listed and put on record. That is the reason for Lords amendment No. 1.
On amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133, the hon. Member for Buckingham referred to pouch boxes. They are a source of considerable concern, although not so much in rural areas, where postal staff use vans for deliveries and are thus able to deal with the extraordinary increase of mail that has occurred during the past 10 to


15 years. Postmen or postwomen in urban areas, who have to deliver, on cycle or on foot, by 9.30 am, have an increasing amount of mail. That is why pouch boxes have crept on to the scene during the past 20 years.
The hon. Gentleman asked at what stage we considered the matter. We addressed it after Committee stage when it was realised that there was no provision to deal with it. There have been provisions on pillar boxes for more than 100 years, but pouch boxes are different. The only change that we are making is to a costly and bureaucratic system under which providers have to apply for street works licences to cover alterations to postal apparatus, although they are exempt from that requirement when they inspect, maintain, adjust, repair or renew such apparatus.
The provision was introduced after discussion with the Post Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—because there is an environmental aspect. The discussions continued for some time and it was not until the Bill had gone to the Lords that we could table the amendment.
People are understandably concerned when pouch boxes are erected at the end of their street. The boxes are usually free-standing. We have not changed any provisions that relate to planning applications. The right of the public to oppose such an application remains. The problem with the Opposition amendment is that the removal of the word "altering" might prevent the postal service provider from undertaking sensible work; for example, changing the metal plates that inform the public of clearing times for the pouch boxes. If the pouch box is attached to a pillar box—which would also be covered by the provision—that could create unwarranted interference to improvements to the service to the public.
The provision could prevent the Post Office from blocking up pillar boxes when there is a terrorist attack or a postal strike. That would be an alteration. Nothing horrendous would result from alteration that could not also be caused when such an appliance was replaced, renewed or adjusted. Therefore we believe that the amendment may prevent innovations of a type that may result from a more competitive marketplace. We cannot see that the schedule as it stands would be improved in any way by removing the word "altering", and we are very anxious to ensure that the public still have the right to oppose planning permission for pouch boxes, because that is an essential safeguard for communities throughout the country.
On that basis, I hope that the Opposition will see fit not to press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 133.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall be brief. I believe that I am the only Member on the Conservative Benches who served on the Standing Committee of the Bill and is also a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has several times considered the working of Post Office services.
I believe that it would be in order for me to put my argument on practically any group of amendments to the Bill, so I shall make it briefly on this group and make it relevant.
Under the Bill, Ministers are giving themselves powers to introduce social and environmental guidance to the Post Office that will give Ministers the power to direct the

Postal Services Commission to do various things, but that guidance will not be issued until the Bill receives Royal Assent. In other words, until that happens, we have no idea what the guidance will say.
We have some indication of that guidance, however, because it was issued in draft in February. Rather presumptuously, it describes itself as draft guidance to the Postal Services Act 2000, and in paragraph 4.9, under the heading "Access to the Universal Postal Services", it says that the commission has a duty to ensure that sufficient access points are provided to facilitate the universal postal service. It also states that the commission will wish to consider, as part of its duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service, the number, type and distribution of access points necessary as a minimum to ensure that the licence holder so required for providing a universal postal service can operate. It makes it clear that access points are considered to be pillar boxes and post offices and other places and points clearly marked as such, provided for users to deposit postal items for collection by UPS providers.
On Monday, when the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he said that until the Bill receives Royal Assent, there is no social and environmental guidance to tag it on to. Ministers have, however, promulgated draft guidance which, once the Bill comes into being, they will impose by way of policy. That guidance could say anything. The draft guidance is totally relevant and germane to the points that the House is now considering, but it is otiose for the House to consider those points if, irrespective of the Government's ability to drive the Bill through with their majority and regardless of what is said in that legislation, they have an all-embracing clause that says that they are enabled to issue environmental and social guidance. What is more, under that guidance they can then promulgate any policy that they wish, which has never been considered by the House but which, regardless, will have statutory force.
If that is so, one really wonders what the House is doing. Why are we here if, effectively, somewhere in the Bill, there are powers for Ministers to issue guidance that will never be considered by the House, but which will have far-reaching effects on everything from the provision of postal boxes to how many post offices are allowed to stay open?
My argument, which I can put succinctly, having sat through the Committee proceedings and having considered the Bill on the Trade and Industry Select Committee, is that this is a rottenly drafted Bill, and that it simply gives Ministers, through so-called social and environmental guidance, almost unlimited powers, which will never be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. It is a sad but appropriate note that the last Bill to be considered on the last day before the recess treats the House with such contempt that, effectively, Ministers are taking unto themselves universal powers to impose policy on the universal postal providers and others by way of a device called guidance. If such a device was introduced in any and every Bill, Ministers would easily be able to bypass Parliament. I would not wish the House to accept the amendment without noting what is happening here. We are giving the Government a blank cheque to issue any further policy. I suspect that few hon. Members have heard of the social and environmental guidance. The consultation period ends on the 31st of this month.
This is a rotten Bill that is rottenly drafted, and it is contemptuous of the House and the scrutiny of Parliament.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 13

LICENCES: CONDITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 26, after ("lie") insert
("or, in Scotland, be competent").

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 to 19, 21, 23 to 26, 32, 41 to 43, 47, 48, 55, 56, 87 to 90, 93, 95 to 98, 100 and 141 to 144.

Mr. Johnson: These are all drafting and consequential amendments intended either to clarify various references or to ensure consistency within the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 30

FINANCIAL PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 21, line 6, at end insert—
("(1A) No such penalty shall exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).").

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendments Nos. 7, 10, 13 and amendment (a) thereto, No. 14 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 51, 52 and 83.

Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments deals with a number of issues relating to the Postal Services Commission's duties and powers. It will place a cap on the financial penalties that can be imposed on licence holders for contravening a licence condition.

Mr. Bercow: I shall focus my remarks on our amendment to Lords amendment No. 6 and other Lords amendments in the group, especially amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
The purpose of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 6 is to restrict any fine that is levied under the Bill to 10 per cent, of turnover. We are concerned that the period in which turnover is taken into account should be a period of only one year, or certainly not exceeding one year.
It is at least arguable and it has been argued in other contexts, not least by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that a 10 per cent, fine is excessive. We contend that one such fine imposed on a company in respect of three years of its turnover would be extortionate. The Conservative Opposition moved a similar amendment, as the Minister will be aware, in Committee in another place. It was flagged up and eloquently argued for by Baroness Miller of Hendon on 8 June. She objected to what she thought was the potential for grossly excessive fines. It is interesting that on that occasion the Minister rejected the amendment tabled by my noble Friend on the grounds that the clause stated that any fine that was imposed would have to be reasonable.
I observe, almost in parenthesis, that it was a slightly curious line of argument for the noble Lord representing the Government to deploy. On several instances during the other House's consideration of the Bill, my noble Friends argued for the insertion of the word "reasonable" in respect of other clauses and amendments. They were swiftly rebutted on each and every occasion by the noble Lord on the ground that reasonableness was implicit in all the clauses and amendments to the Bill. It would thus be otiose to insert the word in the Bill. However, when it suited the Government to argue that their plans were reasonable and did not require our amendment, that is what Lord Sainsbury did.
As the Minister knows, I am a fairminded chap and, in continuing my description of the chronological sequence of events, I must tell the House that, by Third Reading, the Government had had a change of heart. I am sure that that was the result not only of the intellectual ferocity but of the personal charm of my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, which I could not possibly hope to emulate. Nevertheless the Government changed their mind and tabled an amendment.
The draft Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2000 was made on 10 February and it implemented section 36 of the Competition Act 1998. Although the order owes its origin to section 36(8) of the Act, that section says:
No penalty fixed by the Director under this section may exceed 10 per cent, of the turnover of the undertaking (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
Therein lies the reason for the continuing dissatisfaction of Conservative Members. The Government have shifted their position and that is welcome. However, it would help if they changed their position somewhat further so as to recognise the force of the argument, made not least by commercial undertakings, that it is unfair and excessive for the fine to be able to apply to three years of turnover. There is nothing in what the Government have so far provided for to suggest that the period could exceed one year but equally, there is nothing to say that a limit of one year will be observed.
That, therefore, is the problem with the provision. The Secretary of State could issue an order that would triple the figure from 10 per cent, to 30 per cent. There was no mention in Committee or on Second Reading that turnover would exceed one year, but out of the blue last August, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press release that said that
companies engaging in anti-competitive practices will face a maximum penalty of 10 per cent, of their UK turnover for each year of the infringement, up to a maximum of three years.


That could amount to tens of millions of pounds in some cases.
It beggars belief, but the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry were not merely acknowledging that they were providing for the application of a fine on three years' turnover, but were bragging about it as though it was something of which to be proud. First, the Government gave no sign that they would do that and then they did it. They then talked about an amendment in the Lords Committee, assuaging, in some way, the Opposition's legitimate concerns. However, at heart, the Government still want there to be a punitive fine regime.
Although there is indubitably a case for a fine regime, that regime should be fair. It should not be punitive or extortionate and it should assuredly not be used as a source of revenue for application elsewhere. The suspicion exists—my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will confirm it after three years of this Government—that such moneys can be regarded as stealth taxes. In this case, those stealth taxes are imposed not on individuals, but on businesses.
8 pm
As the Minister will acknowledge, consultation revealed a long hostility towards the new penalty regime. The Confederation of British Industry is especially critical of the order. A Government who pride themselves on their apparently close relations with at least some representatives of business, and with the CBI in particular, should at least have taken on board those comments and changed the order accordingly.
The CBI said:
The proposed maximum penalty for breaches of the Act is excessive. It could lead to extremely large fines, and affect the viability of businesses, potentially leading to insolvencies and consequent job losses…The CBI believes the imposition of a maximum fine on a three-year basis to be contrary to the principle of section 60 of the Act; the equivalent time period at EU level is only one year.
It went on to say:
The proposed level of maximum fine may also be contrary to the general Community law principle of proportionality.
It continued:
Such a level of penalty goes beyond normal bounds, whether in terms of deterrent, retribution or proportionality, and arguably runs counter to the Government's stated goal of creating a healthy, pro-business environment.
My next concern relates to paragraph 4 of the Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2000, to which I direct the Minister's attention. It reads:
Where an undertaking consists of two or more undertakings that each prepare accounts then the applicable turnover shall be calculated by adding together the respective applicable turnover of each, save that no account shall be taken of any turnover resulting from the sale of products or the provision of services between them.
That seems further to emphasise the punitive character of the fine regime. One can have a substantial number of companies only indirectly and tangentially involved with the main culprit, whose turnover is contributing to the sum on which the 10 per cent, fine over three years is levied. That does not seem fair.
The Minister is an immensely reasonable specimen. He is the closest approximation to reasonableness that one can expect in this Government.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: He never used to be.

Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position, the Minister used not to be reasonable, but that was when he was representing the forces of organised labour—he was veritably an old-fashioned trade unionist in those days. Of course, he has since made the transition to new Labour, and he is an aspiring and rising Minister. His tune has changed, but we will dig out what he has said on previous occasions. If he can persuade us that the provision is reasonable, we will be interested to hear how that can be so.
This is a matter of particular concern at a time when the Post Office is trying to expand. It has recently made several acquisitions—German Parcel being the most notable example—and it is in the process of forming important and potentially profitable strategic alliances. When it is getting bigger, the scope for hefty fines to be imposed is a legitimate source of anxiety, and I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on that point.
In the DTI press release to which I alluded earlier, which was issued on 9 August last year, the Government proudly flagged up the fact that they were providing for tough penalties. If memory serves me correctly, in 1996, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were considering proposed reforms to competition law, there was consideration of a new fine regime, which was to be determinable by, or at least capable of being heard by, a tribunal. The idea was to impose a maximum limit on a fine of about £1.5 million. Here we have a proposal that could result in extortionate sums of money being taken from companies. On the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
I turn now to Lords amendment No. 13, which is also a matter of legitimate concern to the House, and the Opposition seek to amend it. This amendment is intended to place the commission under an obligation to conduct benchmarking operations with other postal operators in order to ensure a competitive market place. The present commission has indicated a willingness to do that, but the commission should be under an obligation to do something, rather than simply consider whether it is practicable.
The Government have talked about the prospect of benchmarking where it is "practicable" to engage in it. We think that that is not a persuasive case. If benchmarking is a good idea—if it is in the national and commercial interest to be able to compare the performances of different service providers, it is not clear, given that there is to be a regulatory structure, why this should be only an opportunity and not a formal obligation.
We welcome the Lords amendment based on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in Committee in the Commons, but we want to strengthen it. In doing so, we would be meeting a function of the commission under clause 5(3), requiring that the commission
shall exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to promote efficiency and economy on the part of postal operators.


Accordingly, this amendment proposes that the commission collect information about the effectiveness of the Post Office, as compared with similar operations, and then report on the information that it has collected. It is difficult to see how the commission will be able to discharge the function referred to in, and provided for by, clause 5(3) without the benefit of such information. The proposal provides the information necessary to enable the commission to carry out its functions and the reassurance that that information will definitely be sought.
Thus the amendment that we commend is similar to that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for B anbury in Committee, and I ought properly to add that it is supported by the Periodical Publishers Association. It is designed to ensure that the Post Office make efficiency savings and offer a competitive service. When a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, the Minister rejected it, as it would have required licence holders to arrange and fund the carrying out of annual independent reviews of the efficiency and economy of its operations.
Our contention is that the amendment seeks the same ends, but the commission will be responsible. Because the Post Office is, for the time being, the only realistic carrier of magazines, PPA members want it to operate in a manner calculated to promote efficiency and economy.
I shall detain the House only briefly to say something about the amendment to Lords amendment No. 14—[Interruption.] The Minister for Trade is a distinguished denizen of this place. He has detained this House on many occasions. I have listened with wide-eyed enthusiasm to the sheer power of the hon. Gentleman's oratory, so I hope that he will forgive me if, in performing my duty on behalf of the Opposition, I briefly detain the House on the amendment to Lords amendment No. 14. If the hon. Gentleman knows me well, he will know that it is much better for him to keep quiet and not provoke me. If he insists on provoking me, it will take a great deal longer, and the blame and responsibility for that will be his, not mine.
The amendment to Lords amendment No. 14 is designed to ensure that a reference to transparency and accounting appears in the Bill. It would ensure that the commission considers any potential cross-subsidy and reports on it each year to ensure fair competition. The Government amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed by my noble Friend Baroness Miller on 15 June. It seeks to highlight how the commission is performing its functions under the European directive. I emphasise to the Minister that this is a welcome concession from the Government, but we would like to see in the Bill a direct reference to transparency in accounts.
It might be helpful if I explain to the House that the wording of the amendment is taken directly from article 14 of EU Postal Services Directive 97/67/EC. The Minister will understand that the background is the July 1999 White Paper "Post Office Reform: A world class service for the 21st century", which emphasised the importance of transparent accounting and limiting cross-subsidies to a level necessary for the preservation of essential services. It stated that the regulator would need to ensure that the necessary accounting transparency was in place to give credible assurance that there was no

undue cross-subsidy from the business units operating in the monopoly area to those competing in other market sectors. That point was expanded upon at page 25, paragraphs 25 to 26, which no doubt the Minister could reproduce off the top of his head and with which I will not therefore weary the House.
The White Paper made it clear that, until the regulator was established, responsibility for ensuring transparent accounting and for monitoring cross-subsidies rested with the Government. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its 12th report reached a similar conclusion. Transparency of accounting and the limiting of cross-subsidies are central themes of the European postal services directive. That is clear from recitals from that directive. In article 14, there is an express requirement to keep separate accounts and to allocate costs to each of the non-reserved and reserved services.
The amendment would ensure that the Bill gives appropriate weight to the stated aim of the directive, of the White Paper and of the Select Committee report, that competition should be fair and cross-subsidies be limited to cases where they are necessary to maintain the universal service obligation, and necessary to the transparency of accounts. The amendment seeks to enhance, rather than to detract from, the existing provisions of the Bill.
On 14 March, in Committee, the Minister said that the Government had considerable sympathy with our aims. I hope that he will accept that our amendment is a robust means by which to achieve them. It would have the advantage of transparency and predictability for commercial operators, which have long complained about unfair cross-subsidies to the Post Office's Parcelforce.
It is a powerful case. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it on his feet, if I may put it that way, and accept the wisdom of our arguments.

Mr. Alan Johnson: All throe of the issues that we are debating and that were covered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have come about as a result of us listening to points that were raised at Committee stage in the House and in the other place. I am a little surprised that Conservative Members have tabled amendment (a). The Lords amendments that they seek to amend or to remove concern issues on which the Government have accepted changes to deal with particular concerns in the other place.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we took note of the intellectual ferocity and charm of Baroness Miller of Hendon. She said about our amendment, which the Opposition are trying to amend:
We have no difficulty in accepting this amendment—
amendment No. 6.
We argued for it quite strongly either in Committee or on Report. We thank the Minister for bringing it back in this form.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 171.]
The people whose intellectual ferocity and charm convinced us to table the amendment have said not one word in support of amendment (a). Lord Dearing of Hull, who knows one or two things about the Post Office, also warmly welcomed the change.
Amendment (a) would define the applicable turnover for determining the maximum fine under clause 30 as being for a period of not more than 12 months, and being either the period of the business year preceding the date


when the contravention ended, or the date of the imposition of the penalty if the contravention had not ended. It would also effectively make the order-making power of the Secretary of State—which is a crucial element of that part of the Bill—unnecessary. It would, in that sense, be a backward step.
The amendment is overly prescriptive. We believe that it is technically deficient. I know that arguments about technical deficiency are always the bane of those on the Opposition Front Bench, but it makes no provision, for example, as to whether the relevant turnover is to be restricted to that of the business in the UK, or extended to cover worldwide turnover. Nor does it allow for the possibility of the detailed provisions to change over time.
Careful consideration is needed to define turnover for those purposes. That will entail a level of detail that would be inappropriate in the Bill.
Detailed provisions should be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State, as provided for in Lords amendments Nos 14 and 83. Such provisions would mirror the procedure adopted for the analogous provisions in the Competition Act 1998, and in the Utilities Bill.
8.15 pm
The hon. Member for Buckingham made a valid point. He was concerned about whether a Government would use the power to impose burdensome fines on what could be the Post Office but could, in the future, be other universal service providers. That is the whole point about the licensing regime. The time to raise the issue, however, will be when the Secretary of State lays the order before the House by means of a statutory instrument. That, entirely properly, will give the House an opportunity to decide whether there are any problems relating to the fine.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an entirely reasonable point. The Minister batted it off, saying, "We can discuss this later, when an order is laid". Given that my hon. Friend raised an important point, however, will the Minister assure me that there will be a period of open consultation, so that when the order is laid, the important accounting and equity issues raised by my hon. Friend can be properly discussed?

Mr. Johnson: We are talking about circumstances in which the terms of a licence have been breached. We were originally reluctant to put a cap on the fine imposed, but the forceful arguments advanced in another place convinced us that we should do so. That is entirely consistent with the Competition Act and with the Utilities Bill, and it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that we should not be burdened in the Bill by the form that the penalty should take.

Mr. Bercow: May I press the Minister on the question of the entitlement to fine on three years' turnover? This is a matter of grave concern. We do not dispute the principle that fines should be imposed, but business representatives out there believe that the scope for fining of three years' worth of turnover is excessive. How will the Minister reassure them?

Mr. Johnson: I would reassure them on this basis. As I said earlier—I realise that someone was speaking to the

hon. Gentleman at the time—the amendment, as drafted, does not take account of whether turnover in the domestic part of the business is involved, or turnover in its European subsidiaries. There is a technical deficiency. It is impossible to deal with such technicalities in the Bill, but we will ensure that an order is laid before the House so that the issues can be debated.
The money obtained from any fine will not go into Treasury coffers; it will go to the Postal Services Commission. There will be no great imperative either to impose too many fines, or to insist that the fines are used to plug a gap in public finances. The money cannot be used in that way: it will go to the commission.
I do not think the amendment is necessary. I think the Opposition should quit while they are ahead. They made a good contribution which was accepted in another place, and I do not think we need amend that further.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 13 would require the Postal Services Commission to collect information enabling comparisons to be made between the efficiency and economy of different postal operators, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. Unlike Lords amendment No. 13, the amendment leaves the commission with no discretion whatever.
We do not doubt that comparative information will be essential to the commission when it carries out many of its core duties. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in Committee; we thought it sensible, and we have dealt with it. However, we do not think that we need to be prescriptive in the Bill. It is important to leave operational matters to those who are in the best position to make the decisions—in this case, the Postal Services Commission.
It is important that the commission should have some discretion in when it collects comparative information, because it may not always feel that a comparison is useful. The Government do not want to require the commission to do work—for which licence holders will pay—if the commission believes that that work is unnecessary.
The commission also does not have the power to require such information from unlicensed operators or from anyone except universal service providers in the United Kingdom. It certainly does not have the power to require information from operators abroad. However, an important aspect of comparisons, particularly of the services provided, will be to consider operations in the private sector and in countries such as Sweden. Removing the element of choice and insisting that the commission must do such work regardless of whether it is necessary would be a backward step and would not be acceptable.
We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 14 is quite unnecessary. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Buckingham that transparency is essential and absolutely healthy. Indeed, ensuring that a universal service provider keeps separate accounts within its internal accounting systems for each of its reserved and non-reserved services is one of a number of important requirements of the European postal services directive. However, a requirement to report on how it has complied with that duty is already subsumed within the provisions of amendment No. 14, which will require the Postal Services Commission to include in its annual report a report on how it has complied with its obligations under the postal services directive. Highlighting that specific aspect of that duty would have no practical effect and would serve no useful purpose.
Now I come to the point that is dreaded by every speaker at the Dispatch Box, when it is necessary to correct an earlier statement. I am told that the money goes not to the commission, but to the Consolidated Fund. However, the commission has no financial incentive to fine companies. I hope that that fully clarifies the point.
I cannot accept the amendments to the Lords amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 49

POWERS OF ENTRY AND SEIZURE

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 32, line 13, leave out (" 95(2)") and insert ("(Inviolability of mails)(2)")

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 40, 50, 53, 57 to 61, 72, 73 and 79.

Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments clarifies and improves the Bill's provisions protecting postal packets in the course of transmission by post. The amendments were made to honour a promise made in Committee that the Bill's provisions on interference with the mail and the connected provisions on inviolability and conditions of transit of postal packets would be clarified. The matter required careful consideration, and I regret that we were not able to complete our consideration of it in time to make the amendments on Report. However, we believe that, with the introduction of the amendments in the other place, the provisions have been clarified.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

Clause 54

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS: GENERAL

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 34, line 34, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) shall establish at least one committee, and may establish other committees, in relation to England (whether a committee for England or a committee for an area within England).")

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29, No. 68 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 109 to 120, 149 and 166.

Mr. Johnson: This group of amendments relates to the Consumer Council for Postal Services established by clause 2. The lead amendment requires that at least one regional committee must be set up in relation to England, whether for the whole of England or an area within it. That reflects concerns that there should be at least one regional

committee in England. The amendment leaves the council free to recommend whatever number of committees it feels is appropriate, but there must be at least one. There are several consequential amendments to schedule 2.
Lords amendment No. 28 removes from clause 57 the requirement to notify investigations. Lords amendment No. 68, which inserts a new clause after clause 110, facilitates the transfer of property and staff from the existing consumer bodies and the Post Office Users National Council to the new council.
The rest of the amendments are drafting, technical or consequential. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 71

LIMIT ON LOANS AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of debt securities issued in pursuance of section 63 of this Act, and")

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35, No. 66 and amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 67, 121 to 125, 146, 153 and 154.

Mr. Johnson: These amendments relate to the financial and tax provisions in the Bill concerning the Post Office company, and to issues arising out of the transfer from the statutory corporation to the Post Office company.
Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 34 amend clause 71 to remove the Government's shareholding from the calculation of the Post Office company's indebtedness to Government while retaining in the calculation any debt securities issued to Government under clause 63. The amendments stem from an agreement in Committee in the Lords to consider further the inclusion of the Government's shareholding in the Post Office company in the light of Lord Dealing's amendment seeking to remove both the shareholding and debt securities issued to the Government from the calculation.
Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 146 deal with public records. Amendment No. 67 inserts a new clause recreating a power similar to that in section 75(2) of the Post Office Act 1969, to enable the Secretary of State to vest in the Post Office company the property in the records of the Postmaster General and to give directions to the Post Office company in respect of making those records available to the Crown for inspection and copying.
The order-making power in section 75(2) of the 1969 Act has never been exercised, so the vesting of the pre-1969 records remains an outstanding matter from that Act. Amendment No. 146 amends schedule 8 to bring the Consumer Council for Postal Services and the Post Office company into the scope of the Public Records Act 1958 when the bodies come into existence.
Lords amendment No. 123 inserts a new paragraph into schedule 3 to ensure that the managers of welfare funds for persons who are or have been engaged in the business of the Post Office, and for their relatives and dependants, have the power to alter the funds to take account of the transfer of the Post Office to the Post Office company. The amendment maintains the rights of persons eligible for assistance under the existing funds.
Lords amendment No. 125 is a deeming provision with the effect that, on or after the appointed day mentioned in clause 62, the Post Office company will be treated for all purposes of value added tax as if it were the same person as the Post Office. That will mean, for example, that no charges will arise from changes to the Post Office company's VAT group simply as a consequence of the transformation into the company. Together with the other tax provisions in the Bill, the amendment will ensure that the transfer of properties, rights and liabilities from the Post Office to the Post Office company under clause 62 is tax neutral.
The remaining amendments are minor technical or drafting amendments that complete or clarify existing provisions in the Bill. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Mr. Bercow: The Opposition propose a small but significant amendment to Lords amendment No. 66. Our understanding is that there is a provision for loans to the Post Office and reference is made to the powers of the Secretary of State in that context. What foxes and perturbs my right hon. and hon. Friends is the provision that where sums are made available in currencies other than sterling
For the purposes of this section equivalents in sterling shall be calculated as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Our amendment would ensure that calculations were not made by the Secretary of State, but determined in accordance with the dictates of the market.
It seems curious that the Government wish to arrogate to themselves power for the Secretary of State to determine equivalents in sterling where other currencies are involved as their track record over several years is that whenever Ministers have been challenged, they have been very reticent on the subject of exchange rates. It genuinely perplexes me that now, instead of leaving these matters for market determination, they wish to arrogate to themselves the authority to make such judgments.
I shall not take the House through the litany of examples of occasions on which Ministers have been challenged. I remind the House of just one pertinent example, namely the proceedings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November 1998, the detail of which I feel sure is still firmly imprinted upon the mind of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I specifically questioned him on the subject of exchange rates and the relevant issue of economic and monetary union, and whether it should be undertaken at exchange rate mechanism mid-rates. The right hon. Gentleman looked most perplexed and, after reflection, said that he thought that I was jumping a whole lot of hurdles very prematurely. I make the observation simply to underline the surprise of Opposition Members that the Government wish to determine these matters themselves.
It could be that there is a peculiarly good reason why Ministers wish to be able to judge the equivalents in sterling where other currencies are made available, but it is not clear to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
I suspect that, in addition to all his other claims to fame, the Minister for Competitiveness is a financial wizard of the highest calibre. His explanation will be comprehensive and compelling in equal measure, I hope. I wait to hear it.

Mr. Alan Johnson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has heard about my economics O-level.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is boasting again.

Mr. Johnson: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) proposes an amendment that will have a very short shelf life as it would apply only to foreign currency loans made to the Post Office Corporation. Of course the corporation will cease to exist once the pic company comes into being—hopefully next year—after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Lords amendment No. 66 to clause 109 has nothing whatever to do with the rate of interest applied to foreign currency loans. The hon. Gentleman did not raise that point, but it has been raised elsewhere. It merely provides that, for the purposes of calculating total indebtedness of the Post Office Corporation under clause 109, the Secretary of State will determine the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt. That is particularly applicable to the acquisition of German Parcels last year. The amendment ensures that clause 109 mirrors the provision in clause 71(4) regarding the determination of the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt for the Post Office company.
There is absolutely no doubt that market rates will be taken into account for the purposes of the calculation. The Government amendment creates the flexibility for sterling equivalents to be valued in different ways according to their purpose. It allows for foreign currency loans to be given a sterling valuation first by taking the prevailing exchange rate at the date of the loan for the purposes of measuring the Post Office's outstanding borrowing against its statutory limit, and secondly, by taking the prevailing exchange rate on the balance sheet date for Post Office and National Loans Fund accounting purposes. The key point is that market rates will be taken into account for the calculation. Opposition Members have nothing to fear in that regard.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will not press his amendment, and that he will accept that the Government amendments fully account for the questions that he raised.
Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 53 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 103

APPLICATION OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ENACTMENTS TO CERTAIN POSTAL PACKETS

Lords amendment: No. 54, in page 62, line 20, leave out ("other country") and insert
("country or territory outside the United Kingdom")

Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 71, 75 to 78, 80 to 82, 85, 102 to 104, 106 to 108, 145, 147, 148, 150 to 152, 155 to 165 and 167 to 171.

Mr. Johnson: The amendments in this group modify the detailed arrangements in the Bill to ensure its smooth commencement, and the transition to the new arrangements.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 55 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 109

EXTENSION OF EXISTING POWERS RELATING TO THE POST OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 66, in page 65, line 15, at end insert—
("(7) After section 74(4) of that Act there shall be inserted —
(4A) For the purposes of this section equivalents in sterling shall be calculated as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." ")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out from "calculated" to end and insert —
'in accordance with market rates'.—[Mr. Bercow.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 226.

Division No. 298]
[8.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gamier, Edward


Amess, David
Gibb, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bercow, John
Gray, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Green, Damian


Blunt, Crispin
Greenway, John


Body, Sir Richard
Grieve, Dominic


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hammond, Philip


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jenkin, Bernard


(Chipping Batnet)
Johnson Smith,


Clappison, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Key, Robert


(Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Collins, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cran, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lansley, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Duncan Smith, lain
Letwin, Oliver


Evans, Nigel
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Right, Howard
Loughton, Tim


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Luff, Peter


Fraser, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





McIntosh, Miss Anne
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy


May, Mrs Theresa
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Paterson, Owen
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Prior, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Ruffley, David
Willetts, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. John Randall and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Alexander, Douglas
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Austin, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Beard, Nigel
Dismore, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Doran, Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Edwards, Huw


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradshaw, Ben
Flynn, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burnett, John
Fyfe, Maria


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gerard, Neil


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coaker, Vemon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Hepburn, Stephen


Coleman, lain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin






Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr Kim
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jenkins, Brian
Rammell, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Rapson, Syd


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rendel, David


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keeble, Ms Sally
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Salter, Martin


Khabra, Piara S
Savidge, Malcolm


Kidney, David
Sawford, Phil


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Shaw, Jonathan


Laxton, Bob
Shipley, Ms Debra


Leslie, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Snape, Peter


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCabe, Steve
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


(Makerfield)
Stoate, Dr Howard


McDonagh, Stabhain
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McDonnell, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stunell, Andrew


McIsaac, Shona
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
(Dewsbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


McNamara, Kevin
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McWalter, Tony
Timms, Stephen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Tipping, Paddy


Mallaber, Judy
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Touhig, Don


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Trickett, Jon


Merron, Gillian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Vis, Dr Rudi


Moran, Ms Margaret
Walley, Ms Joan


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Mountford, Kali
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Swansea W)


O'Brien, Bill (Nonvanton)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Olner, Bill
Wills, Michael


Opik, Lembit
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wood, Mike


Pearson, Ian
Woodward, Shaun


Perham, Ms Linda
Woolas, Phil


Pickthall, Colin
Wyatt, Derek


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Pollard, Kerry
Mr. David Jamieson and


Pond, Chris
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

question accordingly negatived

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 67 to 171 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Resolved,

That Bernard Harold Ian Halley Stewartby, Baron Stewartby of Portmoak, shall be appointed as a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.—[Mr. Bern.]

PETITIONS

Doncaster-Finningley Airport

Caroline Flint: It gives me the greatest pleasure to present to the House a petition from 21,000 residents of my constituency and the surrounding area, including Mr. Andrew Bosmans of 14 Strutton close, Cantley, Doncaster, who is a member of the Finningley "Say Yes" campaign, which organised the petition.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of residents of the Don Valley Constituency and surrounding area
Declares that Doncaster and the Yorkshire and Humber Region will greatly benefit from the employment and services generated by the proposed Doncaster-Finningley airport.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow the application for the proposed Doncaster-Finningley airport to proceed without a public inquiry.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
I should like to add that that petition has my full support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis).
To lie upon the Table.

Silver Springs Motel, Tenpenny Hill

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is a great honour to present the House with a much humbler petition, which, though signed by a mere 370 people, comes from a village in my constituency that is home to a mere 800 or so souls.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the Residents of the Parish of Thorrington and the surrounding area.
Sheweth
that, while the United Kingdom should always remain a safe haven for genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution, the Silver Springs Motel on Tenpenny Hill is a completely unsuitable facility for the accommodation of up to 120 asylum seekers, because—
it is in a rural area, where the nearest settlement of Thorrington has a resident population of only 850 souls, only one shop and none of the necessary facilities or available jobs to accommodate a major influx of new people;


it does not comply with the criteria laid down by the government's policy of dispersal of asylum seekers, namely that there is no ready access to the legal advice, English language support, mental health services and refugee community organisations which offer practical and social support that asylum seekers need, and which the recent Audit Commission report cited as necessary in order to achieve the Government's social inclusion objective;
it comprises only wooden structures that comprise nothing more than the most basic bed and breakfast accommodation;
and because there has been no local consultation whatsoever with local people, who are shocked to learn that planning law provides no protection from the change of use of the premises;
and, notwithstanding any central government grant assistance to local authorities for the costs of asylum seekers, the use of Silver Springs is likely to give rise to additional costs that will be borne by local taxpayers;
and that the announcement that Silver Springs is being considered has not unnaturally given rise to exactly the kind of adverse reaction in the community and hostile press reaction that those seeking to protect the genuine interests of asylum seekers would wish to avoid;.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to prevent the housing of asylum seekers at Silver Springs in Thorrington.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Industry and Employment (Dunstable)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Sir David Madel: It is three years since I had an Adjournment debate on the position of industry in Dunstable. That was in May 1997 and, while I did not expect immediate action in the first month of a new Labour Government, I hoped to put Dunstable's industrial problems at the top of Minister's in-trays and I think that I achieved that.
Three years on, however, industry and employment in Dunstable are again sliding backwards. By that I mean that there have been job losses and no improvement in the infrastructure, which harms local industry in Dunstable and the next-door town of Houghton Regis. Last year, the TRW steering group left the area, with almost 300 jobs losses. Of immediate concern to Dunstable and the surrounding area was an announcement on 4 July by Automotive Sealings Systems, BTR. In a press statement the company announced
the closure of its Dunstable factory with the loss of up to 400 jobs.
BTR manufactures rubber seals for car doors and windows for all the major European car manufacturers. The press statement went on to say that the company
plans to set up a smaller plant in the Dunstable area which will employ up to 130 people.
That was a bad blow for the town. The company followed it up with a request to me for three forms of action—three areas of financial assistance that would help. The first was relocation assistance in establishing a new greenfield site. The second was training grants in connection with the multi-skilling programme for the work force who are going to transfer to the new site. The third was local employment assistance for those people seeking alternative jobs as a consequence of the reduction in employee numbers—alas, 400 jobs are going.
Other auto-component manufacturers in the town are not finding it at all easy. One cause is the high value of the pound. One month ago in June, Mr. Richard Marton, the chief executive of Britax pic, made the most ominous comment on the sale of his company's automotive components business. On 26 June, he said:
It's a very unpleasant industry. It's a beastly environment with some very unreasonable demands and pressures being put upon all the people that operate in it.
Decoded, one could say that that means that there is strong global competition and car manufacturers are putting heavy pressure on components manufacturers to keep prices as low as they can.
The good news in the past 24 hours was the announcement of the new assisted area map, and I am grateful to the Minister for Trade, who is to answer the debate, and to his civil servants for keeping me informed as to local developments. The Minister says in his letter to me of 27 July:
You will have been pleased—
I am very pleased—
with the confirmation yesterday that the European Commission accepted our proposals and for the first time these wards—


three wards in Dunstable-Houghton Regis, Houghton South, Northfields and Icknield—
qualify for Tier 2 funding. The company—
BTR—
may be eligible for grant-aid under the Regional Selective Assistance scheme subject to it satisfying that the intended investment meets the same criteria and European Union sectoral restrictions do not apply.
That is good news, but when the company made its press announcement on 4 July it said:
The company expects the factory in London Road, Dunstable to close by March 2001. The 42,000 sq metre site is likely to be re-developed.
The site is not in any of those three wards; it is in the Priory ward. I do not know where the company will move. If it goes into one of the three wards that now have assisted area status, it will get help.
Also, I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that we want the London road site to be redeveloped, but for industry. I do not want another derelict site in Dunstable. I want someone to go to the London road site and provide jobs. If such a company needs help to restructure and alter the site, I hope that there will be a way of finding that help. BTR has said that it will have a new site locally, with 130 jobs. That is fine, but finding a new employer for the other site is equally important.
In our area, we are not merely sitting back and wondering what on earth to do after these employment difficulties. As I understand it, the East of England development agency is involved in an infrastructure benchmarking study—a fair bit of jargon, but I hope that it means that the development agency will help us in the Dunstable area to re-use a number of brownfield sites for industry.
If our assisted area status is to be of lasting benefit to south Bedfordshire, we must use this opportunity to make those sites suitable for 21st century usage. That means high-tech companies. However, as the study notes, infrastructure funding must also be provided. We need help from the EEDA on that problem.
Furthermore, we are considering a scheme described as an Oxford-Cambridge technology arc. That too is jargon; it means a proposal to build on the international reputation of Oxford and Cambridge universities to create an English silicon valley. It offers a possible way to spread the pressures and benefits of the Cambridge phenomenon sub-regionally to areas such as Bedfordshire, Luton and, of course, Dunstable-Houghton Regis by the provision of suitable infrastructure links.
The proposal is fine, but the EEDA has not yet agreed to part-fund the study. I hope that it will do so, because I think that our area can become a silicon valley between Oxford and Cambridge. When the Minister replies, will he say whether he can give the EEDA a shove forward?
I want to go into a little more detail on the infrastructure. There is a disused railway line between Dunstable and Luton. Detailed proposals for its conversion into a busway are on their way to the Government; work will be completed and submitted within the next few months. Do the Government think that it would better for us to restore the rail link between those two industrial towns? In Dunstable, there is strong opinion in favour of reopening the disused line. In one parish poll, 80 per cent, of people said yes. There will

be another poll in the autumn. It would be helpful if the Government could give us their opinion during the next few weeks. In which direction—railway or busway—do they guide us?
A much bigger infrastructure problem for industry and individuals is the complete lack of progress on Dunstable's bypass and the effect that it has on industry. I have studied the glossy publication issued by the Deputy Prime Minister last week. I searched it until I was dizzy for a mention of Dunstable's bypass, but there is none, so I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. He replied that
a five-year plan will be announced after full representations have been taken by December. Those plans—
that is, local transport plans—
will make recommendations for bypasses and roads and I shall consider them.
The crucial words in the reply are:
Of course bypasses can play a part on some strategic routes in both rural and urban areas and I shall take representations from the strategic regional review bodies and the development agencies. All that will enable us to identify those roads over the next six months.—[Official Report, 20 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 560.]
Is there a chink of light there? Is it possible that, by December, the Government will nerve themselves to say that we can go ahead with a public inquiry into the Dunstable bypass-not least for industrial reasons? I cannot hold my breath until December, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I shall pass away; a by-election in my constituency would not be welcome. However, I very much hope that, by December, the Government will agree to a public inquiry in Dunstable and that a bypass will be constructed.
I shall not seek re-election to Parliament at the next general election. After 30 of the happiest and most challenging years of my life, it is time for a new person to represent my constituency. It has been the greatest privilege for me to have served my constituents for those 30 years. While this Parliament continues, however, I am drawing up a list of leaving presents; not for myself—because I do not want to wreck my parliamentary career by having a row with the sleaze buster, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—but for my constituents. Here is one which I hope the Government will consider, and which I think will help us in our difficulties.
I refer to the final report by the Rover taskforce, which the Minister now has. The taskforce identified five areas in which action was needed to help industry in the Birmingham area: modernisation of the automotive base, diversification of the regional economy, regeneration and creation of new opportunities, support for the work force and support for families and communities. All of those apply to Dunstable and Houghton Regis. That is almost tailor made for our area in view of the industrial setbacks that we have had. There would need to be some modification. Those are five excellent aims that are just as relevant for us.
What I hope the Government can do—they will get my full support if they can—is to take Dunstable and Houghton Regis and the industrial area next door forward on the basis of those recommendations. We need to diversify our local economy. We need regeneration and creation of new opportunities. My goodness, we need support for the work force in view of what has happened


in the last few years and support for families and communities, who are used in Dunstable and Houghton Regis to working for a thriving industrial base.
Therefore, I am reaching out to the Government and the Minister this evening, as this Session almost comes to an end, to ask him for help, because if the Government will give such help they will get a superb response from people in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, who want to rebuild their industry and economy and who want to go on doing what they have done for years—making a substantial contribution to the economy and well-being of this country.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel). I did not know that he would be retiring at the next general election, but I can say—I believe, for many people in the House—that he is a man of great integrity, and a person who has fought very hard for his constituency and his constituents from the Back Benches. He will be sorely missed.
In his usual style, the hon. Gentleman has put his case extremely forcefully on behalf of his constituents, and one agrees with him that any loss of jobs is a difficulty for those people who lose them, and who, obviously, have the Government's sympathy. However, against the background of an ever-changing world, we must now consider how we can manage the change that is inevitable in an ever faster-moving world and in the continued development of the global economy.
say from the start that the Government are very supportive of manufacturing industry and, specifically, the automobile industry. In the automobile industry, especially around the Dunstable area, there are probably some of the best technicians, the best mechanics and the best designers. I believe that eight of the top 10 formula one teams are working in the United Kingdom—many around the area that the hon. Gentleman represents.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the wider context of manufacturing, it is important to put the automobile industry at the heart of our economy—the real wealth creation. To that end, since May 1997 we have been bringing forward a raft of initiatives to ensure that our manufacturing base not only continues but gets into the real value added and makes real use of the intellectual property that is in many of our academic institutions, in science parks and research centres.
I shall lay out a few of those initiatives for the hon. Gentleman. We have cut corporation tax to the lowest level ever. We have introduced a new 10 per cent, starting rate for small companies from April 2000, and that has benefited 270,000 companies. The temporary 40 per cent, first-year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises was welcomed; we have now made that permanent. We have introduced 100 per cent, first-year capital allowances for small businesses investing in information communications technologies.
We have introduced a research and development tax credit from April 2000 to boost the level of R and D undertaken by small firms. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we encourage our small and medium companies to get involved in more R and D.
We have revisited the whole of the skills base of the nation and, after wide consultation, we have introduced the Learning and Skills Council. I hope that it will work in conjunction with the university for industry, which is now being developed, and will reach out to many of the employees and companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have neglected in the past few years the need to sharpen up our ability to export. That is why we have created a new organisation called British Trade International, which is a marriage of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is designed to give exporters the best possible service. It will make directly available to those who want to export the knowledge and information that the 200-odd embassies and high commissions around the world hold. We shall do that by electronic as well as other means. We have to be seen to be managing change, which is inevitable. We have to see how we can equip the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and many others with the necessary skills to go into high-tech industry.
I have looked at the statistics for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. While I accept that when individuals are declared redundant, they and their families suffer, since 1997 unemployment has been brought down by 30 per cent, in south-west Bedfordshire, which is a considerable achievement, as a result of the Government's policy not only to tackle the problems of unemployment, but to manage change further along the supply chain, where real value is added.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also trying to adopt a more sensible approach to regional selective assistance. Within the stringent constraints set by the European Commission, we have tried to make sure that all the facilities available to assist industry are used to best effect. That is why the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that 90 per cent, of the population in his constituency is covered by the assisted areas map. I hope that he and his constituents will use that facility in the most effective way. It can be used to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman was asking for—to assist companies that want to bring new investment into the area. There is a facility there that can aid and abet that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his regional development agency. He is a sensible Member, so I hope that he will tell some of his Front-Bench colleagues not to propose to scrap the agency in the event of their gaining power. That is a long way off, but to undermine the development agencies in the job that they are doing would not be good for the region or the problems of Dunstable. So we have developed the regions and business-led boards that can look strategically at some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
I suggest that some of the ideas for development in Dunstable and the surrounding area are brought before the development agency. I am sure that not just the financial facility of assisted area status, but the agency's wider powers will be utilised. Last week, the comprehensive spending review showed clearly that the Government have confidence in the regional development agencies both by the amount of money that we are dispensing to them to carry out social and economic regeneration in their area and by providing flexibility in budgets, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined and discussed with the RDAs last Friday when he met all the chairmen of


the agencies. In the lifetime of the comprehensive spending review, the RDAs will have about £1.7 billion a year to dispense in a fairly flexible way.
The Small Business Service is now coming on stream along with the local learning and skills councils. The RDAs will be influencing them, so they are important bodies with which the hon. Gentleman ought to set up a dialogue to tackle the specific problems that he has raised this evening.
I am not able to answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's questions on transport links, but I assure him that I will convey his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I can refer him to what my right hon. Friend said when he answered the hon. Gentleman's questions during the statement on the Government's plans for transport. Clearly, the answer offered a chink of light in terms of restoring railway links and taking a sensible approach to bypasses.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the chairmen of the regional development agencies, the wider issue of the economic well-being of the region was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the chairmen that he wanted them to become involved in the decisions that

we shall take on transport and land use planning issues. Their advice will be factored into the decision-making process in the Department because my right hon. Friend recognises that it is extremely important that land use, transport and economic planning work together. If they do, we shall achieve the best results. Therefore, the RDAs will have a major influence on how the money is dispensed and, more important, on the evolution of land use and planning issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a site that might be vacated as a result of a company's reorganisation. That site could well be considered by the regional development agency, and I hope that it will be able to find a better use for it.
The facilities that the Government have put in place will assist in managing the change that is inevitable and necessary in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I believe that that change can be managed. Reducing unemployment by 30 per cent, in the constituency in the past three years is not a bad result. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be better-off in terms of their disposable income and they will have a future to which they can look forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Nine o 'clock.